Greetings from Blackheath in the Lewisham East constituency. Not much sign of election enthusiasm here. No queues outside the polling stations.
I was in Blackheath the weekend before last (not for any politics-related reason). I walked around a fair bit (the weather was quite gorgeous). I saw two posters all the time I was there. One Labour, one Green.....
Theresa May is close to an almighty bust-up with anti-EU rebels on a key part of her Brexit law.
Of course the wish is father or mother to the thought.
Tbh I wish the ERG would shut-up and feck-off!
You'd end up with hard Brexit's best friend Jez in power then. It's odd that the EUphile's best hope is turning out to be JRM keeping quiet and just waiting for any kind of Brexit bill to become law.
And the evidence that Jez is hard Brexit's best friend is to be found... where exactly? The ERG are the only group in Parliament pushing for a hard Brexit.
He literally scuppered any chance of the UK staying in the single market with his "not-EEA" amendment that got no support from government benches and then had a three line whip against the EEA amendment. By some method he is helping to take the UK out of the single market.
Whereas ERG are just promoting a walk-away crash Brexit.
The only difference between the ERG and Jez is that the ERG openly admit they are in favour of hard Brexit and believe we should be planning for it. Jez just quietly sabotages soft-Brexit from the inside at every opportunity. You clearly have been fooled by his "man of the people" act on it.
Theresa May is close to an almighty bust-up with anti-EU rebels on a key part of her Brexit law.
Of course the wish is father or mother to the thought.
Tbh I wish the ERG would shut-up and feck-off!
You'd end up with hard Brexit's best friend Jez in power then. It's odd that the EUphile's best hope is turning out to be JRM keeping quiet and just waiting for any kind of Brexit bill to become law.
And the evidence that Jez is hard Brexit's best friend is to be found... where exactly? The ERG are the only group in Parliament pushing for a hard Brexit.
He literally scuppered any chance of the UK staying in the single market with his "not-EEA" amendment that got no support from government benches and then had a three line whip against the EEA amendment. By some method he is helping to take the UK out of the single market.
The single market and the EU with its restrictions on state aid and state intervention are not compatible with true socialism Corbyn and McDonnell style. Why would they support staying in the SM?
I think all it prohibits is subsidising 'lame ducks'.
Ireland apparently manages to run a vertically integrated railway network, with one supplier of services. It still has a nationalised electricity board, i.e. ESB. Ditto. Since ESB PLC bought Northern Ireland Electricity, NI consumers now get their electricity from a nationalised supplier based in the South!
France has a state-owned electricity supplier, EDF PLC.
I don't recall Jacques Delors, a French socialist, ever moaning about EU restrictions; he embraced the opportunities that it gave for progressive legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Delors
Ken Livingstone is also a Eurosceptic turned Europhile.
McDonnell and Corbyn, or Mann and Skinner, seem to be a very small group of socialists who ignore all this evidence.
That's a really excellent video. I agree 100% that productivity is a rubbish statistic. I've often argued that the mix effect is a big distortion and Robert illustrates it very well with Eric and Steve. I'll save a link to this video to tweet every time a politician mentions the UK "productivity" problem.
The other point that really struck me is that if you increase public sector pay by say 10% you, at a stroke, increase UK GDP by around 2-3 % (as well as increasing productivity by the same amount). Economics statistics are often rubbish aren't they?
That's not correct. If public sector pay increases then so does the output deflator (i.e. price index) for public sector gdp, pari passu, and that is what is used to transform nominal to real. So there is no effect on public sector productivity.
Is there some nominal measure of public sector output? Increasing, say, police numbers by 10% might lead to 10% more policing, or it might lead to policing becoming 10% less efficient. Most likely it would be somewhere in between but unless there is a measure of police output, how would we know?
It is the G component in C+I+G+X-M on the expenditure measure of GDP. But there is indeed a difficulty with measuring public sector productivity because output in the public sector is generally measured by inputs. So productivity as the ratio of output to input becomes somewhat nonsensical.
ah there you are. Just fyi, following our recent exchange, the NIESR model didn't accommodate a possible rate cut by the BoE post the vote; it was a conditional model based upon in/out of the EU.
As for post-vote performance of the UK economy, many forecasts were based upon less spectacular global growth than transpired. Had the global environment not been so favourable, UK growth might have been worse.
Classic economists' shoulda, woulda, coulda but that was the thinking.
"the NIESR model didn't accommodate a possible rate cut by the BoE post the vote" Of course it didn't. That was my point: known policy measures are taken as given in all such forecasts.
"As for post-vote performance of the UK economy, many forecasts were based upon less spectacular global growth than transpired. Had the global environment not been so favourable, UK growth might have been worse." I never said anything about that. But it is obviously correct.
Mueller revealed (inadvertently, when documents relating to his response to Manafort's bail application were published unintentionally unredacted...) some very interesting names attached to Manafort's allegedly dodgy lobbying group...
Friedman proposed that the group would be led by Alfred Gusenbauer, a former Austrian chancellor with whom he said he had spoken shortly before writing the memo. He also listed other European politicians with whom he hadn’t spoken but who “represent the initial talent pool Alfred and I would canvass informally if you approve.”
The names included: Romano Prodi, a former prime minister of Italy Adolfo Urso, a former Italian trade minister; Jean-Paul Moerman, a Belgian judge; Bodo Hombach, a former German government minister and “influential publishing boss”; Javier Solana, a former NATO secretary-general from Spain and “respected man for all seasons in Europe”; Alain Minc, an old adviser to former French President Nicolas Sarkozy; Alain Juppé, a former prime minister of France; and Aleksander Kwasniewski, a former president of Poland….
That's a really excellent video. I agree 100% that productivity is a rubbish statistic. I've often argued that the mix effect is a big distortion and Robert illustrates it very well with Eric and Steve. I'll save a link to this video to tweet every time a politician mentions the UK "productivity" problem.
The other point that really struck me is that if you increase public sector pay by say 10% you, at a stroke, increase UK GDP by around 2-3 % (as well as increasing productivity by the same amount). Economics statistics are often rubbish aren't they?
That's not correct. If public sector pay increases then so does the output deflator (i.e. price index) for public sector gdp, pari passu, and that is what is used to transform nominal to real. So there is no effect on public sector productivity.
Is there some nominal measure of public sector output? Increasing, say, police numbers by 10% might lead to 10% more policing, or it might lead to policing becoming 10% less efficient. Most likely it would be somewhere in between but unless there is a measure of police output, how would we know?
It is the G component in C+I+G+X-M on the expenditure measure of GDP. But there is indeed a difficulty with measuring public sector productivity because output in the public sector is generally measured by inputs. So productivity as the ratio of output to input becomes somewhat nonsensical.
And outputs are measured (inevitably) in relation to political goals. For example, do we want to see more people prosecuted and convicted, or fewer crimes in the first place? More patients successfully treated or fewer falling sick? They are not independent variables of each other.
I am sure ONS statisticians try their best to take those considerations into account – how else to you assess the output of the public sector but by reference to its goals?
Manafort’s references to the Hapsburg member’s “role” and the “EP” refer to that Hapsburg member’s position as a representative of the European Parliament and the parallel actions of the European Parliament and the United States Senate regarding Tymoshenko’s imprisonment in 2012. That characterization is consistent with Person D2’s description, during a meeting with the government, of that Hapsburg member’s role as Manafort’s “spy and mouthpiece.”
Mr. Max, might prefer to drop Sainz, as he's linked to Red Bull, with whom Renault have a not necessarily lovely relationship (and Hulkenberg has generally outscored and outqualified Sainz this year). That said, the current pairing is strong and could be around for years. Alonso won't be around for much longer and has a reputation for causing internal problems, although he is a very fast driver.
I think getting Alonso in would be a statement of intent for Renault to show they are serious about F1 and about overhauling RBR as the main competitor to Mercedes and Ferrari. Alonso is never going to get a seat at any of the top teams, but next season Renault will be able to get podium finishes and the odd race win. I don't see McLaren delivering that, or Sainz/Hulkenberg delivering reliable podium finishes for Renault. Added to that there is a lot of history between the team and Alonso, he won his two world titles there.
That's a really excellent video. I agree 100% that productivity is a rubbish statistic. I've often argued that the mix effect is a big distortion and Robert illustrates it very well with Eric and Steve. I'll save a link to this video to tweet every time a politician mentions the UK "productivity" problem.
The other point that really struck me is that if you increase public sector pay by say 10% you, at a stroke, increase UK GDP by around 2-3 % (as well as increasing productivity by the same amount). Economics statistics are often rubbish aren't they?
That's not correct. If public sector pay increases then so does the output deflator (i.e. price index) for public sector gdp, pari passu, and that is what is used to transform nominal to real. So there is no effect on public sector productivity.
Is there some nominal measure of public sector output? Increasing, say, police numbers by 10% might lead to 10% more policing, or it might lead to policing becoming 10% less efficient. Most likely it would be somewhere in between but unless there is a measure of police output, how would we know?
It is the G component in C+I+G+X-M on the expenditure measure of GDP. But there is indeed a difficulty with measuring public sector productivity because output in the public sector is generally measured by inputs. So productivity as the ratio of output to input becomes somewhat nonsensical.
And outputs are measured (inevitably) in relation to political goals. For example, do we want to see more people prosecuted and convicted, or fewer crimes in the first place? More patients successfully treated or fewer falling sick? They are not independent variables of each other.
I am sure ONS statisticians try their best to take those considerations into account – how else to you assess the output of the public sector but by reference to its goals?
I understand that. I was merely reinforcing the point that it is a devilishly difficult task and will inevitably be less accurate than other components in the measure of GDP, Particularly as the measured output goal can change, unlike in say profit/loss or widget production rates.
Mr. Max, I think Hulkenberg and Sainz are a very good pairing. Alonso would be a coup/statement of intent, but would also likely cause internal disruption and demand number one status. I also think it's plausible he'll be off to Indycar.
If Renault believe they can challenge for a title next year or 2020 it might make sense.
That's a really excellent video. I agree 100% that productivity is a rubbish statistic. I've often argued that the mix effect is a big distortion and Robert illustrates it very well with Eric and Steve. I'll save a link to this video to tweet every time a politician mentions the UK "productivity" problem.
The other point that really struck me is that if you increase public sector pay by say 10% you, at a stroke, increase UK GDP by around 2-3 % (as well as increasing productivity by the same amount). Economics statistics are often rubbish aren't they?
That's not correct. If public sector pay increases then so does the output deflator (i.e. price index) for public sector gdp, pari passu, and that is what is used to transform nominal to real. So there is no effect on public sector productivity.
Is thered we know?
It is the G component in C+I+G+X-M on the expenditure measure of GDP. But there is indeed a difficulty with measuring public sector productivity because output in the public sector is generally measured by inputs. So productivity as the ratio of output to input becomes somewhat nonsensical.
ah there you are. Just fyi, following our recent exchange, the NIESR model didn't accommodate a possible rate cut by the BoE post the vote; it was a conditional model based upon in/out of the EU.
As for post-vote performance of the UK economy, many forecasts were based upon less spectacular global growth than transpired. Had the global environment not been so favourable, UK growth might have been worse.
Classic economists' shoulda, woulda, coulda but that was the thinking.
"the NIESR model didn't accommodate a possible rate cut by the BoE post the vote" Of course it didn't. That was my point: known policy measures are taken as given in all such forecasts.
"As for post-vote performance of the UK economy, many forecasts were based upon less spectacular global growth than transpired. Had the global environment not been so favourable, UK growth might have been worse." I never said anything about that. But it is obviously correct.
Don't get snitty - the rate cut was not a part of the forecast. That was what we were discussing.
So there was a forecast, and then there was a rate cut, and then the economy did something that the forecast hadn't forecast. And then people criticised the forecast because the rate cut might have rendered it inaccurate. Or less accurate.
Mueller revealed (inadvertently, when documents relating to his response to Manafort's bail application were published unintentionally unredacted...) some very interesting names attached to Manafort's allegedly dodgy lobbying group...
Friedman proposed that the group would be led by Alfred Gusenbauer, a former Austrian chancellor with whom he said he had spoken shortly before writing the memo. He also listed other European politicians with whom he hadn’t spoken but who “represent the initial talent pool Alfred and I would canvass informally if you approve.”
The names included: Romano Prodi, a former prime minister of Italy Adolfo Urso, a former Italian trade minister; Jean-Paul Moerman, a Belgian judge; Bodo Hombach, a former German government minister and “influential publishing boss”; Javier Solana, a former NATO secretary-general from Spain and “respected man for all seasons in Europe”; Alain Minc, an old adviser to former French President Nicolas Sarkozy; Alain Juppé, a former prime minister of France; and Aleksander Kwasniewski, a former president of Poland….
That's a really excellent video. I agree 100% that productivity is a rubbish statistic. I've often argued that the mix effect is a big distortion and Robert illustrates it very well with Eric and Steve. I'll save a link to this video to tweet every time a politician mentions the UK "productivity" problem.
The other point that really struck me is that if you increase public sector pay by say 10% you, at a stroke, increase UK GDP by around 2-3 % (as well as increasing productivity by the same amount). Economics statistics are often rubbish aren't they?
That's not correct. If public sector pay increases then so does the output deflator (i.e. price index) for public sector gdp, pari passu, and that is what is used to transform nominal to real. So there is no effect on public sector productivity.
Is there some nominal measure of public sector output? Increasing, say, police numbers by 10% might lead to 10% more policing, or it might lead to policing becoming 10% less efficient. Most likely it would be somewhere in between but unless there is a measure of police output, how would we know?
It is the G component in C+I+G+X-M on the expenditure measure of GDP. But there is indeed a difficulty with measuring public sector productivity because output in the public sector is generally measured by inputs. So productivity as the ratio of output to input becomes somewhat nonsensical.
And outputs are measured (inevitably) in relation to political goals. For example, do we want to see more people prosecuted and convicted, or fewer crimes in the first place? More patients successfully treated or fewer falling sick? They are not independent variables of each other.
I am sure ONS statisticians try their best to take those considerations into account – how else to you assess the output of the public sector but by reference to its goals?
I understand that. I was merely reinforcing the point that it is a devilishly difficult task and will inevitably be less accurate than other components in the measure of GDP, Particularly as the measured output goal can change, unlike in say profit/loss or widget production rates.
In North America they tend to use a lot of air conditioning even in places that don't really need it, whereas in Europe it's used a lot less even in places that get pretty hot in summer like Italy and Spain. That means a lot of GDP will be generated in North America by the air conditioning industry, people paying for it, etc, that isn't being generated in Europe. Does that automatically mean that North America is that much more prosperous than Europe simply because it uses air conditioning where Europe doesn't? You could argue that Europe is saving resources by not using so much air conditioning, yet it suffers in terms of GDP. It's a similar type of conundrum to the productivity one IMO.
Theresa May is close to an almighty bust-up with anti-EU rebels on a key part of her Brexit law.
Of course the wish is father or mother to the thought.
Tbh I wish the ERG would shut-up and feck-off!
You'd end up with hard Brexit's best friend Jez in power then. It's odd that the EUphile's best hope is turning out to be JRM keeping quiet and just waiting for any kind of Brexit bill to become law.
And the evidence that Jez is hard Brexit's best friend is to be found... where exactly? The ERG are the only group in Parliament pushing for a hard Brexit.
He literally scuppered any chance of the UK staying in the single market with his "not-EEA" amendment that got no support from government benches and then had a three line whip against the EEA amendment. By some method he is helping to take the UK out of the single market.
Whereas ERG are just promoting a walk-away crash Brexit.
The only difference between the ERG and Jez is that the ERG openly admit they are in favour of hard Brexit and believe we should be planning for it. Jez just quietly sabotages soft-Brexit from the inside at every opportunity. You clearly have been fooled by his "man of the people" act on it.
This equates to: "Although there is no hard evidence, I have decided that Jez must be secretly plotting the actions I assume he is."
On topic, thanks Robert for the video, very interesting. If I may disagree a bit: Productivity does have use.
The gov captures items like GDP because it represents the amount of money that can be taxed. If two people wash their own car then that's nothing to do with the gov. If they wash each others and pay for it, then it's part of GDP because it increases the amount of tax that can be collected.
Likewise, 'productivity' (meaningless as that term is) represents the amount of money that can be taxed per hour worked. This can be useful as part of tax setting calculations.
Theresa May is close to an almighty bust-up with anti-EU rebels on a key part of her Brexit law.
Of course the wish is father or mother to the thought.
Tbh I wish the ERG would shut-up and feck-off!
You'd end up with hard Brexit's best friend Jez in power then. It's odd that the EUphile's best hope is turning out to be JRM keeping quiet and just waiting for any kind of Brexit bill to become law.
And the evidence that Jez is hard Brexit's best friend is to be found... where exactly? The ERG are the only group in Parliament pushing for a hard Brexit.
He literally scuppered any chance of the UK staying in the single market with his "not-EEA" amendment that got no support from government benches and then had a three line whip against the EEA amendment. By some method he is helping to take the UK out of the single market.
Whereas ERG are just promoting a walk-away crash Brexit.
The only difference between the ERG and Jez is that the ERG openly admit they are in favour of hard Brexit and believe we should be planning for it. Jez just quietly sabotages soft-Brexit from the inside at every opportunity. You clearly have been fooled by his "man of the people" act on it.
This equates to: "Although there is no hard evidence, I have decided that Jez must be secretly plotting the actions I assume he is."
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
ah there you are. Just fyi, following our recent exchange, the NIESR model didn't accommodate a possible rate cut by the BoE post the vote; it was a conditional model based upon in/out of the EU.
As for post-vote performance of the UK economy, many forecasts were based upon less spectacular global growth than transpired. Had the global environment not been so favourable, UK growth might have been worse.
Classic economists' shoulda, woulda, coulda but that was the thinking.
"the NIESR model didn't accommodate a possible rate cut by the BoE post the vote" Of course it didn't. That was my point: known policy measures are taken as given in all such forecasts.
"As for post-vote performance of the UK economy, many forecasts were based upon less spectacular global growth than transpired. Had the global environment not been so favourable, UK growth might have been worse." I never said anything about that. But it is obviously correct.
.. So there was a forecast, and then there was a rate cut, and then the economy did something that the forecast hadn't forecast. And then people criticised the forecast because the rate cut might have rendered it inaccurate. Or less accurate.
The BoE cut the interest rate because its pessimistic assessment (=forecast) post Brexit coloured it's outlook. Many observers thought that a mistake at the time which could have fueled incipient inflationary pressures. Though as yet there isn't much evidence of that.
In North America they tend to use a lot of air conditioning even in places that don't really need it, whereas in Europe it's used a lot less even in places that get pretty hot in summer like Italy and Spain. That means a lot of GDP will be generated in North America by the air conditioning industry, people paying for it, etc, that isn't being generated in Europe. Does that automatically mean that North America is that much more prosperous than Europe simply because it uses air conditioning where Europe doesn't? You could argue that Europe is saving resources by not using so much air conditioning, yet it suffers in terms of GDP. It's a similar type of conundrum to the productivity one IMO.
These days we serve ourselves petrol, shop in self service shops, use online banking, and the trend is more and more to DIY economic activities. None of these add to GDP and have displaced the petrol attendant, shop assistant, bank teller who did contribute to GDP. No wonder recorded GDP growth is slowing but I think we are all being more productive in these DIY activities even if they are not recorded.
It is possible, as the world divides into the wealthy elite and the poor masses, that the wealthy elite will pay for services that they used to do themselves such as cleaning homes, gardening, washing cars etc thereby reversing the trend to DIY and generating extra GDP .
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Have you finally admitted that we're leaving the EU?!
Theresa May is close to an almighty bust-up with anti-EU rebels on a key part of her Brexit law.
Of course the wish is father or mother to the thought.
Tbh I wish the ERG would shut-up and feck-off!
You'd end up with hard Brexit's best friend Jez in power then. It's odd that the EUphile's best hope is turning out to be JRM keeping quiet and just waiting for any kind of Brexit bill to become law.
And the evidence that Jez is hard Brexit's best friend is to be found... where exactly? The ERG are the only group in Parliament pushing for a hard Brexit.
He literally scuppered any chance of the UK staying in the single market with his "not-EEA" amendment that got no support from government benches and then had a three line whip against the EEA amendment. By some method he is helping to take the UK out of the single market.
Whereas ERG are just promoting a walk-away crash Brexit.
The only difference between the ERG and Jez is that the ERG openly admit they are in favour of hard Brexit and believe we should be planning for it. Jez just quietly sabotages soft-Brexit from the inside at every opportunity. You clearly have been fooled by his "man of the people" act on it.
This equates to: "Although there is no hard evidence, I have decided that Jez must be secretly plotting the actions I assume he is."
No, THIS equates to "there are none so blind as those who won't see...."
History will paint Jeremy Corbyn as integral to Brexit, both the initial Referendum vote in favour and in the implementation.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Have you finally admitted that we're leaving the EU?!
No but I just disagree that the net effect of Corbyn's manoeuvres is to sink any chance of staying in the single market. He's just closing off any escape routes for the government and making sure they own the betrayal when it comes.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Have you finally admitted that we're leaving the EU?!
No but I just disagree that the net effect of Corbyn's manoeuvres is to sink any chance of staying in the single market. He's just closing off any escape routes for the government and making sure they own the betrayal when it comes.
Sometimes it even surprises me how you can contrive these things. Only for a moment and then I remember that you are the most slavishly pro-EU weirdo I've ever seen.
We can add the Lisbon Treaty to the list of things Anna Soubry doesn’t understand.
We will leave on 29th March 2019 in accordance with European law. Whether we become a third country overnight is not in Westminster’s gift. We can request another status, but we cannot insist. We now know that there is no majority in the House of Commons for perpetual freedom of movement.
I don't have access to sound at the moment, but is it productivity that Robert is debunking?
Yes, basically he says that the way we measure it is bunk.
I agree. It seems to me that our success in bringing millions of "Steve's" into the workforce is why our recorded productivity is so low. With low payroll taxes and wage subsidies by in work benefits we have greatly encouraged employment. This is a good thing although it does beg the question of how much of a good thing we can afford.
There is huge white-collar overemployment especially in the public sector.
We can add the Lisbon Treaty to the list of things Anna Soubry doesn’t understand.
We will leave on 29th March 2019 in accordance with European law. Whether we become a third country overnight is not in Westminster’s gift. We can request another status, but we cannot insist. We now know that there is no majority in the House of Commons for perpetual freedom of movement.
How do we know that? There are many reasons for voting against the EEA amendment other than that.
I see Anna is playing "sneak the title of a TV game show into your tweet".
Anyway, looks like we are on the final countdown to a meaningful vote.
What do you think the odds are of there not being a meaningful vote, 15-1?
And indeed meaningful in what way? Altering the government decision? Altering the EU position? Making MPs feel good? Making the government ask for something, which the EU say No to? Making the EU do what we tell them to? In any meaningful way. it is meaningless.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
I see Anna is playing "sneak the title of a TV game show into your tweet".
Anyway, looks like we are on the final countdown to a meaningful vote.
What do you think the odds are of there not being a meaningful vote, 15-1?
And indeed meaningful in what way? Altering the government decision? Altering the EU position? Making MPs feel good? Making the government ask for something, which the EU say No to? Making the EU do what we tell them to? In any meaningful way. it is meaningless.
I was in Germany last week and there was no whisper of this - it's either come up lightning quickly or there's not much to it.
EDIT: I see it's Seehofer making waves. He can try all he wants but the nearest British equivalent is Ruth Davidson making noises about pulling the Scottish Tories out of partnership with the English ones - would lead to a massive loss of influence and advantage the opposition, so I'll believe it when I see it. In the world of GroKo, anything similar in the SPD would be much more signficant, but I didn't sense any wobbles there last week.
I think the nearest equivalent is probably more like JRM than Ruthie. Seehofer still controls a fairly large block within the ruling coalition, just as the ERG do within the Tories. Technically Seehofer can fell Merkel either by withdrawing from the coalition (just as the ERG could give up the whip) or by forcing a vote of no confidence (just as the ERG could). However, neither seem very likely to me for Seehofer or the ERG. I think he just revels in making life difficult for Merkel on immigration and to make it look like the CSU are doing something about it to ward off AfD for October's state election where they could get up to 15% and come second.
Extraordinary. If your analysis is correct - and I see no reason to doubt it - then the ERG really is a party within a party, with vastly more influence than Militant ever had over Labour. How did the Tories let this come about?
Indeed so, and the parasitic Erg is infinitely more powerful than Militant ever was, its host being in office (if not in power). It is a sinister force led by a hard right quasi-aristocrat, for whom working class Leavers are mere useful pawns in the game.
At the polling station opposite Blackheath railway station they've got a sheet of paper posted outside with the number of voters each hour (excluding postal voters). The running total at this polling station at 4pm was 286. According to this document the total number of voters in 2014 was 1,914. But I don't know whether that's the local or general election electorate.
So that would mean turnout at 4pm at this polling station was around 15%. That would give a turnout of around 25% if the same rate continues for the rest of the day.
I have said on here I have no problem with a second referendum. The only thing it should not be on is whether we actually leave or not. That particular issue has already been decided.
And admiring someone and thinking they are erudite, thoughtful and brave does not mean one agrees with every single thing they say.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
At the polling station opposite Blackheath railway station they've got a sheet of paper posted outside with the number of voters each hour (excluding postal voters). The running total at this polling station at 4pm was 286. According to this document the total number of voters in 2014 was 1,914. But I don't know whether that's the local or general election electorate.
So that would mean turnout at 4pm at this polling station was around 15%. That would give a turnout of around 25% if the same rate continues for the rest of the day.
Heading off to Blackheath station in about half an hour, in my view the lower the turnout the more chance the Tories and LDs have as it is most likely Labour voters who constitute most of those staying at home
At the polling station opposite Blackheath railway station they've got a sheet of paper posted outside with the number of voters each hour (excluding postal voters). The running total at this polling station at 4pm was 286. According to this document the total number of voters in 2014 was 1,914. But I don't know whether that's the local or general election electorate.
So that would mean turnout at 4pm at this polling station was around 15%. That would give a turnout of around 25% if the same rate continues for the rest of the day.
Heading off to Blackheath station in about half an hour, in my view the lower the turnout the more chance the Tories and LDs have as it is most likely Labour voters who constitute most of those staying at home
I'm off to the southern part of the constituency to see what turnout is like in that more suburban area. Grove Park, Downham, Whitefoot, etc.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
No it is entirely compatible with the Irish border situation as the regulatory alignment agreed in December confirmed.
It is also compatible with the government's and House of Commons' commitment to leave the single market and customs union and end free movement
At the polling station opposite Blackheath railway station they've got a sheet of paper posted outside with the number of voters each hour (excluding postal voters). The running total at this polling station at 4pm was 286. According to this document the total number of voters in 2014 was 1,914. But I don't know whether that's the local or general election electorate.
So that would mean turnout at 4pm at this polling station was around 15%. That would give a turnout of around 25% if the same rate continues for the rest of the day.
Heading off to Blackheath station in about half an hour, in my view the lower the turnout the more chance the Tories and LDs have as it is most likely Labour voters who constitute most of those staying at home
I'm off to the southern part of the constituency to see what turnout is like in that more suburban area. Grove Park, Downham, Whitefoot, etc.
Sounds like you're having a nice day out there - but not much sign of election fever !
The Tories are the most likely to benefit from low on the day turnout with postals methinks - then Lib Dems as they're the most enthusiastic voters of all major parties.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
No it is entirely compatible with the Irish border situation as the regulatory alignment agreed in December confirmed.
It is also compatible with the government's commitment to leave the single market and customs union and end free movement
Things don't become compatible just because you assert that they are. Did you not notice the hoo-ha about the backstop because of the implication for customs controls between NI and GB?
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
Every result is incompatible with a no border promise. That promise is stupid and will not stand.
At the polling station opposite Blackheath railway station they've got a sheet of paper posted outside with the number of voters each hour (excluding postal voters). The running total at this polling station at 4pm was 286. According to this document the total number of voters in 2014 was 1,914. But I don't know whether that's the local or general election electorate.
So that would mean turnout at 4pm at this polling station was around 15%. That would give a turnout of around 25% if the same rate continues for the rest of the day.
Heading off to Blackheath station in about half an hour, in my view the lower the turnout the more chance the Tories and LDs have as it is most likely Labour voters who constitute most of those staying at home
I'm off to the southern part of the constituency to see what turnout is like in that more suburban area. Grove Park, Downham, Whitefoot, etc.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
Every result is incompatible with a no border promise. That promise is stupid and will not stand.
So where do you expect the customs border to be? NI/GB or NI/ROI?
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
No it is entirely compatible with the Irish border situation as the regulatory alignment agreed in December confirmed.
It is also compatible with the government's commitment to leave the single market and customs union and end free movement
Things don't become compatible just because you assert that they are. Did you not notice the hoo-ha about the backstop because of the implication for customs controls between NI and GB?
Barnier effectively accepted that arrangement in December when he agreed Phase 1 was completed whatever noises he may make in the interim that remains the likely endpoint.
The backstop only comes into play if that regulatory alignment is not by then fully in place
At the polling station opposite Blackheath railway station they've got a sheet of paper posted outside with the number of voters each hour (excluding postal voters). The running total at this polling station at 4pm was 286. According to this document the total number of voters in 2014 was 1,914. But I don't know whether that's the local or general election electorate.
So that would mean turnout at 4pm at this polling station was around 15%. That would give a turnout of around 25% if the same rate continues for the rest of the day.
Heading off to Blackheath station in about half an hour, in my view the lower the turnout the more chance the Tories and LDs have as it is most likely Labour voters who constitute most of those staying at home
I'm off to the southern part of the constituency to see what turnout is like in that more suburban area. Grove Park, Downham, Whitefoot, etc.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
Every result is incompatible with a no border promise. That promise is stupid and will not stand.
So where do you expect the customs border to be? NI/GB or NI/ROI?
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
Every result is incompatible with a no border promise. That promise is stupid and will not stand.
You think there will be a border btwn RoI and NI?
Edit: dashing off. Will pick up your answer, if you answer, in 30mins. If you think there will be a hard border in NI/RoI then I would be happy to construct a bet to the contrary.
At the polling station opposite Blackheath railway station they've got a sheet of paper posted outside with the number of voters each hour (excluding postal voters). The running total at this polling station at 4pm was 286. According to this document the total number of voters in 2014 was 1,914. But I don't know whether that's the local or general election electorate.
So that would mean turnout at 4pm at this polling station was around 15%. That would give a turnout of around 25% if the same rate continues for the rest of the day.
Heading off to Blackheath station in about half an hour, in my view the lower the turnout the more chance the Tories and LDs have as it is most likely Labour voters who constitute most of those staying at home
I'm off to the southern part of the constituency to see what turnout is like in that more suburban area. Grove Park, Downham, Whitefoot, etc.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
Every result is incompatible with a no border promise. That promise is stupid and will not stand.
You think there will be a border btwn RoI and NI?
Yes. What form it will take I have no idea but since we will be leaving the SM there will be a border.
At the polling station opposite Blackheath railway station they've got a sheet of paper posted outside with the number of voters each hour (excluding postal voters). The running total at this polling station at 4pm was 286. According to this document the total number of voters in 2014 was 1,914. But I don't know whether that's the local or general election electorate.
So that would mean turnout at 4pm at this polling station was around 15%. That would give a turnout of around 25% if the same rate continues for the rest of the day.
Heading off to Blackheath station in about half an hour, in my view the lower the turnout the more chance the Tories and LDs have as it is most likely Labour voters who constitute most of those staying at home
Tory pensioners staying at home during the day. Hard-working Labourites will be casting their ballots on the way home this evening.
So how else do you explain his inexplicable "not-EEA" amendment which sunk any chance of Parliament passing the actual EEA amendment? He ensured that there is literally no chance of the country staying in the single market with that move.
On the current path the UK will be in the single market in April 2019 so being absolutist about the EEA can lead you to the wrong conclusions.
If one thing is clear from this week, the 200 vote majority in the Commons to leave the EEA ensures we will not be in the single market beyond the transition period
It merely ensures that having cake and eating it remains the government's position but it has no bearing on which way things will ultimately fall.
A Canada style FTA remains the endpoint
A Canada style FTA is incompatible with the promise to have no border between GB and NI and incompatible with any number of other promises the government has made. It's merely a slogan, not a position.
Every result is incompatible with a no border promise. That promise is stupid and will not stand.
You think there will be a border btwn RoI and NI?
Edit: dashing off. Will pick up your answer, if you answer, in 30mins. If you think there will be a hard border in NI/RoI then I would be happy to construct a bet to the contrary.
I'm hopeful customs can be dealt with in a self-reporting manner at the warehouse (i.e. just an online form submission). No need for checks at the border. Sounds bad for smuggling, but the border is wide open at the moment.
Comments
Doesn't look like Lewisham East voters have quite been as gripped by by election fever as OGH!
Ireland apparently manages to run a vertically integrated railway network, with one supplier of services. It still has a nationalised electricity board, i.e. ESB. Ditto. Since ESB PLC bought Northern Ireland Electricity, NI consumers now get their electricity from a nationalised supplier based in the South!
France has a state-owned electricity supplier, EDF PLC.
I don't recall Jacques Delors, a French socialist, ever moaning about EU restrictions; he embraced the opportunities that it gave for progressive legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Delors
Ken Livingstone is also a Eurosceptic turned Europhile.
McDonnell and Corbyn, or Mann and Skinner, seem to be a very small group of socialists who ignore all this evidence.
Of course it didn't. That was my point: known policy measures are taken as given in all such forecasts.
"As for post-vote performance of the UK economy, many forecasts were based upon less spectacular global growth than transpired. Had the global environment not been so favourable, UK growth might have been worse."
I never said anything about that. But it is obviously correct.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/13/manafort-ukraine-lobby-europe-644823
Manafort has said the group’s work focused on Europe, but Mueller has made public documents that he says show they also lobbied in the U.S. A spokesman for Manafort declined to comment on the new disclosures Wednesday.
Friedman proposed that the group would be led by Alfred Gusenbauer, a former Austrian chancellor with whom he said he had spoken shortly before writing the memo. He also listed other European politicians with whom he hadn’t spoken but who “represent the initial talent pool Alfred and I would canvass informally if you approve.”
The names included: Romano Prodi, a former prime minister of Italy Adolfo Urso, a former Italian trade minister; Jean-Paul Moerman, a Belgian judge; Bodo Hombach, a former German government minister and “influential publishing boss”; Javier Solana, a former NATO secretary-general from Spain and “respected man for all seasons in Europe”; Alain Minc, an old adviser to former French President Nicolas Sarkozy; Alain Juppé, a former prime minister of France; and Aleksander Kwasniewski, a former president of Poland….
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4503148/Reply-in-Support.pdf
Manafort’s references to the Hapsburg member’s “role” and the “EP” refer to that Hapsburg member’s position as a representative of the European Parliament and the parallel actions of the European Parliament and the United States Senate regarding Tymoshenko’s imprisonment in 2012. That characterization is consistent with Person D2’s description, during a meeting with the government, of that Hapsburg member’s role as Manafort’s “spy and mouthpiece.”
If Renault believe they can challenge for a title next year or 2020 it might make sense.
So there was a forecast, and then there was a rate cut, and then the economy did something that the forecast hadn't forecast. And then people criticised the forecast because the rate cut might have rendered it inaccurate. Or less accurate.
On topic, thanks Robert for the video, very interesting. If I may disagree a bit: Productivity does have use.
The gov captures items like GDP because it represents the amount of money that can be taxed. If two people wash their own car then that's nothing to do with the gov. If they wash each others and pay for it, then it's part of GDP because it increases the amount of tax that can be collected.
Likewise, 'productivity' (meaningless as that term is) represents the amount of money that can be taxed per hour worked. This can be useful as part of tax setting calculations.
Only the British are xenophobes, as our betters never tire of reminding us.....
It is possible, as the world divides into the wealthy elite and the poor masses, that the wealthy elite will pay for services that they used to do themselves such as cleaning homes, gardening, washing cars etc thereby reversing the trend to DIY and generating extra GDP .
Peter Tatchell was holding a solitary demonstration to protest the torture of gay men in the Russian federal subject of Chechnya."
https://news.sky.com/story/british-lgbt-campaigner-peter-tatchell-detained-by-russian-police-11404591
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1006952110095785985
"How much do you personally care about whether Britain does or does not leave the European Union?"
Total 50%
18-24 yrs old 35%
65+ yrs old 66%
It should be the other way round given how much longer the young have to live with the consequences.
History will paint Jeremy Corbyn as integral to Brexit, both the initial Referendum vote in favour and in the implementation.
We will leave on 29th March 2019 in accordance with European law. Whether we become a third country overnight is not in Westminster’s gift. We can request another status, but we cannot insist. We now know that there is no majority in the House of Commons for perpetual freedom of movement.
Anyway, looks like we are on the final countdown to a meaningful vote.
Edit: And welcome to the site!
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/61d455a4-6eed-11e8-b28a-9fdeb05b46ba/question/8cdd2dc6-6eed-11e8-9108-a5e2e5f067e0/age
Altering the government decision?
Altering the EU position?
Making MPs feel good?
Making the government ask for something, which the EU say No to?
Making the EU do what we tell them to?
In any meaningful way. it is meaningless.
If the Remainer's red line is a simple vote, then I don't think they're going to be disappointed.
Similarly, if they're happy with a vote, then passing the leaving the SM and CU deal is going to be a doddle.
https://twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/855926589380599809
My son tried to claim that rap songs contain far more meaning than traditional songs. He conceded defeat after listening to that.
At the polling station opposite Blackheath railway station they've got a sheet of paper posted outside with the number of voters each hour (excluding postal voters). The running total at this polling station at 4pm was 286. According to this document the total number of voters in 2014 was 1,914. But I don't know whether that's the local or general election electorate.
www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/elections/electoral-reviews/Pages/review-polling-districts-polling-places.aspx
So that would mean turnout at 4pm at this polling station was around 15%. That would give a turnout of around 25% if the same rate continues for the rest of the day.
And admiring someone and thinking they are erudite, thoughtful and brave does not mean one agrees with every single thing they say.
It is also compatible with the government's and House of Commons' commitment to leave the single market and customs union and end free movement
https://twitter.com/faizashaheen/status/1007265070143983617
In fairness those in countries like Hungary do seem pretty straightforward about their proclivities.
The Tories are the most likely to benefit from low on the day turnout with postals methinks - then Lib Dems as they're the most enthusiastic voters of all major parties.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1007286514781388801
The backstop only comes into play if that regulatory alignment is not by then fully in place
Edit: dashing off. Will pick up your answer, if you answer, in 30mins. If you think there will be a hard border in NI/RoI then I would be happy to construct a bet to the contrary.