Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This evening’s cartoon

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This evening’s cartoon

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


Comments

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,110
    1?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,931
    2!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,258
    edited November 2017
    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?
  • Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,931

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    I think it's projected to go down slower in the latest forecast.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,931
    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,400

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,931
    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    Yeah, both debt to GDP and deficit to GDP will have gone down.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    Is that what I said (serious question)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,258
    edited November 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet task on the deficit.
    Presumably only because real interest rates on debt are negative.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,931

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
    I wonder if it has anything to do with this, over the same time period:

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2016/06/15/12/immigration_4.png
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,400
    edited November 2017

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    Is that what I said (serious question)
    Close enough for government work.

    :smile:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,646

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
    Corbyn's performance outside London was pretty underwhelming. Gaining Kensington and losing Stoke South was not a suggestion he's cutting through outside London.

    It does explain Brexit though.
  • RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
    I wonder if it has anything to do with this, over the same time period:

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2016/06/15/12/immigration_4.png
    It seems to be a global effect (in the West).
    See also, Trump.
    And it doesn't seem to be correlated with immigration volume.

    So, no.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,076
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
    Corbyn's performance outside London was pretty underwhelming. Gaining Kensington and losing Stoke South was not a suggestion he's cutting through outside London.

    It does explain Brexit though.
    Canterbury.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,825
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
    Corbyn's performance outside London was pretty underwhelming. Gaining Kensington and losing Stoke South was not a suggestion he's cutting through outside London.

    It does explain Brexit though.
    The odd thing is that an economy that benefits London doesn't benefit most Londoners. Yes, they earn more, but house prices have shot much further out of reach in London than elsewhere.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,931
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
    Corbyn's performance outside London was pretty underwhelming. Gaining Kensington and losing Stoke South was not a suggestion he's cutting through outside London.

    It does explain Brexit though.
    Canterbury.
    Wasn't that a student thing?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
    Corbyn's performance outside London was pretty underwhelming. Gaining Kensington and losing Stoke South was not a suggestion he's cutting through outside London.

    It does explain Brexit though.
    Corbyn got very variable swings by constituency, but did get some big ones outside the London and SE. Cambourne, Loughborough, Broxtowe for example.

    Corbynism is not just a London based phenomenon, though it may comfort PB Tories to think so.

    Will the people of Cambourne, Loughborough and Broxtowe feel better off at the next GE? on todays figures, I think not.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,646
    edited November 2017
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
    Corbyn's performance outside London was pretty underwhelming. Gaining Kensington and losing Stoke South was not a suggestion he's cutting through outside London.

    It does explain Brexit though.
    Canterbury.
    Is a university seat and is comparable to London.

    Of the 28 gains Corbyn made directly from the Tories, 16 were south of the Severn-Wash line which is dominated by London, three in Wales and a mere nine in the north of England (where they also lost six).

    Look at the map and you will see many seats with close links to the Smoke - Bedford North, Reading East, Canterbury, Brighton Kemptown - going red. These are remainer areas.

    To get back to my original point the correlation is a poor one. While I of all people am not going to suggest Corbyn didn't ride a wave of populist lies a la Brexit in his campaign, the fact is that the same phenomenon cannot explain Corbyn AND Brexit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,646
    edited November 2017

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit is less than overall GDP growth, the debt reduces.

    Hence we don't actually "need" a balanced budget.

    What's very scary about the wage figures though is that those are national averages.

    Outside London/SE the situation is much worse. We are probably talking stagnation for 25, 30 years.

    Explains Corbyn, Brexit.
    Corbyn's performance outside London was pretty underwhelming. Gaining Kensington and losing Stoke South was not a suggestion he's cutting through outside London.

    It does explain Brexit though.
    Corbyn got very variable swings by constituency, but did get some big ones outside the London and SE. Cambourne, Loughborough, Broxtowe for example.

    Corbynism is not just a London based phenomenon, though it may comfort PB Tories to think so.

    Will the people of Cambourne, Loughborough and Broxtowe feel better off at the next GE? on todays figures, I think not.
    And some equally vast ones against him - Mansfield, Stoke South, Middlesbrough.

    I say again, undiluted Corbynism correlates badly to Brexit. Even if essentially in outlook and performance they are two cheeks of the same arse.
  • Be interesting to see if the residents of bristol will enjoy their experience with corbynism if they end up with massive council tax bills, the students effectively having to pay it, all sorts of extra parking fees etc etc etc.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,799
    edited November 2017
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    ea.
    ficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.


    Corbyn's performance outside London was pretty underwhelming. Gaining Kensington and losing Stoke South was not a suggestion he's cutting through outside London.

    It does explain Brexit though.
    Canterbury.
    Is a university seat and is comparable to London.

    Of the 28 gains Corbyn made directly from the Tories, 16 were south of the Severn-Wash line which is dominated by London, three in Wales and a mere nine in the north of England (where they also lost six).

    Look at the map and you will see many seats with close links to the Smoke - Bedford North, Reading East, Canterbury, Brighton Kemptown - going red. These are remainer areas.

    To get back to my original point the correlation is a poor one. While I of all people am not going to suggest Corbyn didn't ride a wave of populist lies a la Brexit in his campaign, the fact is that the same phenomenon cannot explain Corbyn AND Brexit.
    The economic condition of the last 20 years has seen a some winners and a lot of losers.

    It's hard to see that in the aggregate stats.

    Losers include the white working class, who tend to be concentrated outside London & and the SE, and especially in former industrial areas.

    Hence Brexit.

    They also include the young, who are statistically much worse off than the generation before them were at a similar age - lower wages, more insecure jobs, higher education fees and of course higher house prices.

    Hence Corbyn.

    So yes I do argue that stagnant wages, albeit happening unevenly across the population, are manifesting in both Brexit and Corbyn, albeit view different groups and dynamics.

    Edit: sorry about the block quote screw up. This post is in *response* to @ydoethur upthead.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,258
    edited November 2017
    Anyway nearly time to start warming up for a night of espresso making...let’s hope the bt sport commentary is bearable.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    It was explained to me as being because the deficit as a % of GDP is now less than GDP growth as a % of GDP. As long as this remains the case then the deficit as a % of GDP will shrink year on year.

    It does seem to me to be rather a case of blinding people with statistics but I think I get the basic idea.
    Economy year one is £100. Government debt is £100.

    Economy grows 1%, and there is inflation of 2%.

    Let's imagine that the government budget deficit was £2. (Or 2% of GDP).

    So, economy is now £103, while government debt is £102.

    Result debt to GDP has declined despite a budget deficit.
    So cliff notes basically the higher rate of inflation is helping spreadsheet Re the deficit figure.
    Basic stuff.

    So long as deficit
    Corbyn's performance outside London was pretty underwhelming. Gaining Kensington and losing Stoke South was not a suggestion he's cutting through outside London.

    It does explain Brexit though.
    Corbyn got very variable swings by constituency, but did get some big ones outside the London and SE. Cambourne, Loughborough, Broxtowe for example.

    Corbynism is not just a London based phenomenon, though it may comfort PB Tories to think so.

    Will the people of Cambourne, Loughborough and Broxtowe feel better off at the next GE? on todays figures, I think not.
    And some equally vast ones against him - Mansfield, Stoke South, Middlesbrough.

    I say again, undiluted Corbynism correlates badly to Brexit. Even if essentially in outlook and performance they are two cheeks of the same arse.
    For your Middlesbrough there is Stockton South.

    Swings were very variable across the land, though interestingly UNS wasn't a rerrible predictor, because the extremes cancel out.

    Seats that Jezza visited got twice the national swing. This was a campaign rather than North/South thing.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-2017-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-constituency-visits-swing-votes-turnout-polls-ballot-a7892756.html
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 956
    edited November 2017



    The economic condition of the last 20 years has seen a some winners and a lot of losers.

    It's hard to see that in the aggregate stats.

    Losers include the white working class, who tend to be concentrated outside London & and the SE, and especially in former industrial areas.

    Hence Brexit.

    They also include the young, who are statistically much worse off than the generation before them were at a similar age - lower wages, more insecure jobs, higher education fees and of course higher house prices.

    Hence Corbyn.

    So yes I do argue that stagnant wages, albeit happening unevenly across the population, are manifesting in both Brexit and Corbyn, albeit view different groups and dynamics.

    Edit: sorry about the block quote screw up. This post is in *response* to @ydoethur upthead.

    +1 for this. Very astute comment. Both are rebellions against the status quo, but manifesting themselves in different ways amongst different demographics.

    It's an interesting venn diagram too. You have to wonder how big the crossover between the two groups is.

    I imagine there are quite a few in the Corbyn and Brexit camps, e.g. a middle-aged trade unionist who marched at the Durham Miner's Gala with Corbyn (where he was the star attraction at an event that drew crowds of up to 200,000, supposedly).

    This is why Corbyn knows he has to tread carefully. Even though his most ardent fans appear to be young and extremely pro-EU, he needs to keep the other half of the venn diagram onside.

    As Brexit gets closer and closer, that will be easier said than done.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kyf_100 said:



    The economic condition of the last 20 years has seen a some winners and a lot of losers.

    It's hard to see that in the aggregate stats.

    Losers include the white working class, who tend to be concentrated outside London & and the SE, and especially in former industrial areas.

    Hence Brexit.

    They also include the young, who are statistically much worse off than the generation before them were at a similar age - lower wages, more insecure jobs, higher education fees and of course higher house prices.

    Hence Corbyn.

    So yes I do argue that stagnant wages, albeit happening unevenly across the population, are manifesting in both Brexit and Corbyn, albeit view different groups and dynamics.

    Edit: sorry about the block quote screw up. This post is in *response* to @ydoethur upthead.

    +1 for this. Very astute comment. Both are rebellions against the status quo, but manifesting themselves in different ways amongst different demographics.

    It's an interesting venn diagram too. You have to wonder how big the crossover between the two groups is.

    I imagine there are quite a few in the Corbyn and Brexit camps, e.g. a middle-aged trade unionist who marched at the Durham Miner's Gala with Corbyn (where he was the star attraction at an event that drew crowds of up to 200,000, supposedly).

    This is why Corbyn knows he has to tread carefully. Even though his most ardent fans appear to be young and extremely pro-EU, he needs to keep the other half of the venn diagram onside.

    As Brexit gets closer and closer, that will be easier said than done.
    Yes, I think Gardenwalker is correct.

    Jezza has the advantage of being in opposition though, when Brexit happens.
  • kyf_100 said:



    The economic condition of the last 20 years has seen a some winners and a lot of losers.

    It's hard to see that in the aggregate stats.

    Losers include the white working class, who tend to be concentrated outside London & and the SE, and especially in former industrial areas.

    Hence Brexit.

    They also include the young, who are statistically much worse off than the generation before them were at a similar age - lower wages, more insecure jobs, higher education fees and of course higher house prices.

    Hence Corbyn.

    So yes I do argue that stagnant wages, albeit happening unevenly across the population, are manifesting in both Brexit and Corbyn, albeit view different groups and dynamics.

    Edit: sorry about the block quote screw up. This post is in *response* to @ydoethur upthead.

    +1 for this. Very astute comment. Both are rebellions against the status quo, but manifesting themselves in different ways amongst different demographics.

    It's an interesting venn diagram too. You have to wonder how big the crossover between the two groups is.

    I imagine there are quite a few in the Corbyn and Brexit camps, e.g. a middle-aged trade unionist who marched at the Durham Miner's Gala with Corbyn (where he was the star attraction at an event that drew crowds of up to 200,000, supposedly).

    This is why Corbyn knows he has to tread carefully. Even though his most ardent fans appear to be young and extremely pro-EU, he needs to keep the other half of the venn diagram onside.

    As Brexit gets closer and closer, that will be easier said than done.
    Yes, I think Gardenwalker is correct.

    Jezza has the advantage of being in opposition though, when Brexit happens.
    I know it iis difficult to respond to the COE but he was hopeless today, shouting and losing his temper.

    Also John McDonnell got very near to losing his when coming under scrutiny on the BBC

    The next GE will be much more of a forensic examination of Corbyn's policy than he has ever experienced so far
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,067
    ydoethur said:

    the fact is that the same phenomenon cannot explain Corbyn AND Brexit.

    Anger at the status quo
  • Scott_P said:
    If Gordon tweets something similar bet your house on a 5-0 whitewash.
  • I think some MPs shouldn’t be on twitter: you can’t spend all your time on there being borthered by every silly comment and slight that mentions you. I’m thinking of one individual specifically here, who I’ve had to unfollow because their twitter is increasingly them replying to idiots who would be better off ignored more than anything else.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,843

    Have we managed to work out how old spreadsheet has squared the circle of lower than expected growth, some give give aways, no clear major tax rises and still predicting to get the deficit down at the same (or better) rate?

    I am wondering whether he has built some slack into the assumptions of the later years, particularly around tax allowances once the government's promises have been achieved? If the assumption is that the basis personal allowance doesn't rise after the declared target is achieved, this would save a lot of money given inflation assumptions.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,491
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    the fact is that the same phenomenon cannot explain Corbyn AND Brexit.

    Anger at the status quo
    Precisely. Brexit and Corbyn are two sides of the same coin.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    kyf_100 said:



    The economic condition of the last 20 years has seen a some winners and a lot of losers.

    It's hard to see that in the aggregate stats.

    Losers include the white working class, who tend to be concentrated outside London & and the SE, and especially in former industrial areas.

    Hence Brexit.

    They also include the young, who are statistically much worse off than the generation before them were at a similar age - lower wages, more insecure jobs, higher education fees and of course higher house prices.

    Hence Corbyn.

    So yes I do argue that stagnant wages, albeit happening unevenly across the population, are manifesting in both Brexit and Corbyn, albeit view different groups and dynamics.

    Edit: sorry about the block quote screw up. This post is in *response* to @ydoethur upthead.

    +1 for this. Very astute comment. Both are rebellions against the status quo, but manifesting themselves in different ways amongst different demographics.

    It's an interesting venn diagram too. You have to wonder how big the crossover between the two groups is.

    I imagine there are quite a few in the Corbyn and Brexit camps, e.g. a middle-aged trade unionist who marched at the Durham Miner's Gala with Corbyn (where he was the star attraction at an event that drew crowds of up to 200,000, supposedly).

    This is why Corbyn knows he has to tread carefully. Even though his most ardent fans appear to be young and extremely pro-EU, he needs to keep the other half of the venn diagram onside.

    As Brexit gets closer and closer, that will be easier said than done.
    Yes, I think Gardenwalker is correct.

    Jezza has the advantage of being in opposition though, when Brexit happens.
    I know it iis difficult to respond to the COE but he was hopeless today, shouting and losing his temper.

    Also John McDonnell got very near to losing his when coming under scrutiny on the BBC

    The next GE will be much more of a forensic examination of Corbyn's policy than he has ever experienced so far
    One of Jezzas masterstrokes in the GE was in ignoring the Tory agenda (Brexit) and concentrating on his own agenda (anti-austerity). I think that he is likely to do the same again. He is guaranteed equal time and treatment.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,367
    edited November 2017
    Brillo on a roll, very much unable to see the big fecking plank in his own eye tonight.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,843

    kyf_100 said:



    The economic condition of the last 20 years has seen a some winners and a lot of losers.

    It's hard to see that in the aggregate stats.

    Losers include the white working class, who tend to be concentrated outside London & and the SE, and especially in former industrial areas.

    Hence Brexit.

    They also include the young, who are statistically much worse off than the generation before them were at a similar age - lower wages, more insecure jobs, higher education fees and of course higher house prices.

    Hence Corbyn.

    So yes I do argue that stagnant wages, albeit happening unevenly across the population, are manifesting in both Brexit and Corbyn, albeit view different groups and dynamics.

    Edit: sorry about the block quote screw up. This post is in *response* to @ydoethur upthead.

    +1 for this. Very astute comment. Both are rebellions against the status quo, but manifesting themselves in different ways amongst different demographics.

    It's an interesting venn diagram too. You have to wonder how big the crossover between the two groups is.

    I imagine there are quite a few in the Corbyn and Brexit camps, e.g. a middle-aged trade unionist who marched at the Durham Miner's Gala with Corbyn (where he was the star attraction at an event that drew crowds of up to 200,000, supposedly).

    This is why Corbyn knows he has to tread carefully. Even though his most ardent fans appear to be young and extremely pro-EU, he needs to keep the other half of the venn diagram onside.

    As Brexit gets closer and closer, that will be easier said than done.
    Yes, I think Gardenwalker is correct.

    Jezza has the advantage of being in opposition though, when Brexit happens.
    As you say, Labour just has to pray that they don't get any influence until the dirty deed is done and dusted, then they can blame the Tories for its failings unsullied by any responsibility for it. Whether they can pull this off depends to a great extent on how long the whole thing takes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,843
    edited November 2017

    Brillo on a roll, very much unable to see the big fecking plank in his own eye tonight.

    Yes. The man appeared briefly on James O'Bs phone in programme earlier this week, and he sounded a knowledgable and really decent guy. Neil has got himself into a ridiculous position doubling down on his original tweet, using his celebrity to try and bully the guy.

    Edit/oops, mistake - I meant the guy he fell out with about German politics, who was a Brit living in Germany. Not Portes. Neil is staggering from one punch up to another this week, isn't he?
  • Brillo on a roll, very much unable to see the big fecking plank in his own eye tonight.

    What is going on with Andrew Neil at the moment?
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 107
    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    Does anyone know anyone at the OBR? Why did they keep basing their forecasts on productivity growth of 2% when the 10-year average was 0.5%? And why would they then drop their productivity growth estimates on Brexit, when it was common ground between leave and remain campaigns that Brexit would lower unskilled immigration and thus raise labour costs (and with it raise productivity, even if the link isn't as strong as it once was)?

    Honestly, these things are hard enough to get right when you're trying to get them right.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,552
    Drutt said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    Does anyone know anyone at the OBR? Why did they keep basing their forecasts on productivity growth of 2% when the 10-year average was 0.5%? And why would they then drop their productivity growth estimates on Brexit, when it was common ground between leave and remain campaigns that Brexit would lower unskilled immigration and thus raise labour costs (and with it raise productivity, even if the link isn't as strong as it once was)?

    Honestly, these things are hard enough to get right when you're trying to get them right.
    IIRC, 2% productivity growth was the pre crisis norm.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,825
    kyf_100 said:



    The economic condition of the last 20 years has seen a some winners and a lot of losers.

    It's hard to see that in the aggregate stats.

    Losers include the white working class, who tend to be concentrated outside London & and the SE, and especially in former industrial areas.

    Hence Brexit.

    They also include the young, who are statistically much worse off than the generation before them were at a similar age - lower wages, more insecure jobs, higher education fees and of course higher house prices.

    Hence Corbyn.

    So yes I do argue that stagnant wages, albeit happening unevenly across the population, are manifesting in both Brexit and Corbyn, albeit view different groups and dynamics.

    Edit: sorry about the block quote screw up. This post is in *response* to @ydoethur upthead.

    +1 for this. Very astute comment. Both are rebellions against the status quo, but manifesting themselves in different ways amongst different demographics.

    It's an interesting venn diagram too. You have to wonder how big the crossover between the two groups is.

    I imagine there are quite a few in the Corbyn and Brexit camps, e.g. a middle-aged trade unionist who marched at the Durham Miner's Gala with Corbyn (where he was the star attraction at an event that drew crowds of up to 200,000, supposedly).

    This is why Corbyn knows he has to tread carefully. Even though his most ardent fans appear to be young and extremely pro-EU, he needs to keep the other half of the venn diagram onside.

    As Brexit gets closer and closer, that will be easier said than done.
    Lots of people are angry at the status quo, and for different reasons.

    The Left hate the prevailing economic model, the Right hate the prevailing social model.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,843
    Drutt said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    Does anyone know anyone at the OBR? Why did they keep basing their forecasts on productivity growth of 2% when the 10-year average was 0.5%? And why would they then drop their productivity growth estimates on Brexit, when it was common ground between leave and remain campaigns that Brexit would lower unskilled immigration and thus raise labour costs (and with it raise productivity, even if the link isn't as strong as it once was)?

    Honestly, these things are hard enough to get right when you're trying to get them right.
    And it still looks optimistic, given that it isn't obvious why the line should trend more sharply upwards over the next few years. Truss is trying to explain this on Newsnight right now, but it appears to come down to faith rather than facts.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,201

    I think some MPs shouldn’t be on twitter: you can’t spend all your time on there being borthered by every silly comment and slight that mentions you. I’m thinking of one individual specifically here, who I’ve had to unfollow because their twitter is increasingly them replying to idiots who would be better off ignored more than anything else.

    Couldn't agree more.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 45,948
    edited November 2017
  • Merkel seems in real trouble as majority want her to stand down in most recent poll
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,552

    Merkel seems in real trouble as majority want her to stand down in most recent poll

    Comical WG will be along shortly to say that there are no tanks in Iraq....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,674
    HTScotPol: Former Slab spindoctor @AlanRoden tells Scotland Tonight @kezdugdale could really win I'm a Celeb. He last backed @AnasSarwar mind
  • RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    Just back from USA business trip and so depressing to listen to the UK news.

    The world is going through a massive upturn in innovation driven by wads of idle cash. One of my biotech customers has just listed in the US with a market cap of $300m with $2m per year of turnover and 80 staff. Companies with a just an idea are being given $5m of seed money based on one page business plans. The reason this is happening is the concentration of wealth in the world. There are people like Bill Gates who are happy to splash a few million and be prepared to write it off without a second thought.

    Where is the UK Government in all this? Nowhere. Neither Corbyn or TM have a clue. All efforts are spent on allocating the dwindling pile of cash that is raised in new ways. The result is stagnation and irrelevance. This is a crying shame as the UK has a great opportunity to be a key part of the future with its top universities and the attraction of London.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,080
    HYUFD said:
    Unspoofable, as @RobD would say.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Merkel seems in real trouble as majority want her to stand down in most recent poll

    Really? 58% wanted her as Chancellor just yesterday:

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,080
    Mortimer said:

    Merkel seems in real trouble as majority want her to stand down in most recent poll

    Comical WG will be along shortly to say that there are no tanks in Iraq....
    Schulz's position is coming under more pressure than Merkel's.
  • RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    How curious that the quango created by George Osborne made forecasts of productivity growth which met the requirements of Chancellor George Osborne but finally accepted reality after George Osborne had left office.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,552

    Mortimer said:

    Merkel seems in real trouble as majority want her to stand down in most recent poll

    Comical WG will be along shortly to say that there are no tanks in Iraq....
    Schulz's position is coming under more pressure than Merkel's.
    Right on cue.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Brillo on a roll, very much unable to see the big fecking plank in his own eye tonight.

    What is going on with Andrew Neil at the moment?
    Perhaps we need a picture of him in happier days :)

    http://www.private-eye.co.uk/blog/?p=159
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2017
    HYUFD said:
    Actually, I thought the budget OK.

    Not too many gimmicks, indeed very much steady as she goes, with not as much tightening of austerity as caution should indicate.

    Personally, I have not been hammered, and now only 1 more budget before I can put my feet up and take my pension.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,447
    edited November 2017
    Drutt said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    Does anyone know anyone at the OBR? Why did they keep basing their forecasts on productivity growth of 2% when the 10-year average was 0.5%? And why would they then drop their productivity growth estimates on Brexit, when it was common ground between leave and remain campaigns that Brexit would lower unskilled immigration and thus raise labour costs (and with it raise productivity, even if the link isn't as strong as it once was)?

    Honestly, these things are hard enough to get right when you're trying to get them right.
    To be fair to the OBR, initially after the financial crisis productivity resumed growing at circa 2% according to that graph. Right up until the point when, oh... GO's austerity kicked in :disappointed:
  • Brillo on a roll, very much unable to see the big fecking plank in his own eye tonight.

    What is going on with Andrew Neil at the moment?
    Perhaps we need a picture of him in happier days :)

    http://www.private-eye.co.uk/blog/?p=159
    LOL.

    In all seriousness, I think Neil may be another one who may not be best suited to twitter.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,201
    O/T

    Britain's Cycling Superheroes on BBC2 now.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Drutt said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    Does anyone know anyone at the OBR? Why did they keep basing their forecasts on productivity growth of 2% when the 10-year average was 0.5%? And why would they then drop their productivity growth estimates on Brexit, when it was common ground between leave and remain campaigns that Brexit would lower unskilled immigration and thus raise labour costs (and with it raise productivity, even if the link isn't as strong as it once was)?

    Honestly, these things are hard enough to get right when you're trying to get them right.
    To be fair to the OBR, initially after the financial crisis productivity resumed growing at circa 2% according to that graph. Right up until the point when, oh... GO's austerity kicked in :disappointed:
    To be fair, I think that coincidental.

    Britain's sudden anaemic productivity trajectory was surely due substantially to retrenchment in financial services and the oil industry, both highly productive in economic terms.

    No reason to expect a revival mind you, though a collapse of KSA may help Scotland via the oil price.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,447

    HYUFD said:
    Actually, I thought the budget OK.

    Not too many gimmicks, indeed very much steady as she goes, with not as much tightening of austerity as caution should indicate.

    Personally, I have not been hammered, and now only 1 more budget before I can put my feet up and take my pension.
    Yes I'd agree. Tories quietly brushing austerity under the carpet and letting inflation take the deficit away. That and adopting Miliband's policies. Stamp duty change will just pump house prices further though.

    No swoop on pension tax free sums was a big plus for me personally! :smile:
  • England going to bat first...time to hide behind the sofa.
  • AndyJS said:

    O/T

    Britain's Cycling Superheroes on BBC2 now.

    A long program I assume ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,067
    Stokes -> Ball is a massive downgrade. Has Stokes actually been found guilty of anything ?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Stokes -> Ball is a massive downgrade. Has Stokes actually been found guilty of anything ?

    No. And the two witnesses the plod wanted to speak to came forward. It seems like the same people investigating this case are the same who are investigating Keith Vaz...
  • Pulpstar said:

    Stokes -> Ball is a massive downgrade. Has Stokes actually been found guilty of anything ?

    Not even been charged.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,258
    edited November 2017
    Advice for this evening..

    image
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,201
    Ashes in 10 minutes.
  • Jon Venables, 35, is thrown back in jail for a SECOND time after being caught with child porn

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5109415/Bulger-killer-Venables-jail-child-porn.html
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 1,909

    Pulpstar said:

    Stokes -> Ball is a massive downgrade. Has Stokes actually been found guilty of anything ?

    No. And the two witnesses the plod wanted to speak to came forward. It seems like the same people investigating this case are the same who are investigating Keith Vaz...
    Seems to be lots of speculation as to when Stokes is parachuted in, not if.
  • England going to bat first...time to hide behind the sofa.

    All they have to do is imitate Botham and Greig:



  • Cook gone, so glad I had a power nap earlier on.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 45,948

    HYUFD said:
    Actually, I thought the budget OK.

    Not too many gimmicks, indeed very much steady as she goes, with not as much tightening of austerity as caution should indicate.

    Personally, I have not been hammered, and now only 1 more budget before I can put my feet up and take my pension.
    Personally I loved the Budget, it has saved me almost £3k in stamp duty as I am due to complete on a new flat purchase in a fortnight having just exchanged contracts.

    I also thought it had positive measures all round for the problems the country faces.

    Well done Phil!
  • GONNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEE
  • Drutt said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    Does anyone know anyone at the OBR? Why did they keep basing their forecasts on productivity growth of 2% when the 10-year average was 0.5%? And why would they then drop their productivity growth estimates on Brexit, when it was common ground between leave and remain campaigns that Brexit would lower unskilled immigration and thus raise labour costs (and with it raise productivity, even if the link isn't as strong as it once was)?

    Honestly, these things are hard enough to get right when you're trying to get them right.
    To be fair to the OBR, initially after the financial crisis productivity resumed growing at circa 2% according to that graph. Right up until the point when, oh... GO's austerity kicked in :disappointed:
    Indeed, there's a rapid and consistent growth in UK productivity in that graph from the base year of 1999 up to a short-lived fall during the world financial crisis of 2007/8, and then a resumption of that growth in the next two years. From 2011 all we have seen is a consistent flatlining in the actual and now projected productivity growth figures.

  • BTs coverage should shall we say very vanilla. Nothing wrong with it, but no real analysis like sky does nor any sign of innovation that we saw when ch4 won the cricket rights for the first time.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,581
    edited November 2017
    Just to note that it's now absolutely official - no GE this year.

    Even if Parliament voted for one today (Thur 23 Nov), Fri 29 Dec would only be the 24th subsequent working day and the earliest a GE is allowed is the 25th subsequent working day.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,237

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    How curious that the quango created by George Osborne made forecasts of productivity growth which met the requirements of Chancellor George Osborne but finally accepted reality after George Osborne had left office.
    Kept Alastair Meeks happy yesterday.
  • tlg86 said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    How curious that the quango created by George Osborne made forecasts of productivity growth which met the requirements of Chancellor George Osborne but finally accepted reality after George Osborne had left office.
    Kept Alastair Meeks happy yesterday.
    Total Coincidence.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,931
    New thread!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,627

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:
    Just shows how useless these experts are:

    image

    :D
    How curious that the quango created by George Osborne made forecasts of productivity growth which met the requirements of Chancellor George Osborne but finally accepted reality after George Osborne had left office.
    Expecting productivity growth is not unreasonable.
    Just shows how damaging the Osborne austerity was - in particular the cuts in investment I would guess.
This discussion has been closed.