We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
On topic, I think this leaflet represents a classic misunderstanding of how by-elections work.
It assumes people are daft, and cannot distinguish between elections. People in Tiverton & Honiton know that the Tories will remain in office regardless of the by-election. What they are doing, is casting judgment on Johnson (a protest vote - or supportive vote as the case may be), electing a "local campaigner" who will stand up for them on various issues, and highlighting whatever the big local issues are.
The best bet for the Tories is to emphasise the merits of their own candidate (and potentially any flaws with their rival), and visible things the party has done or will do for the locality. They should also probably bite the bullet on being positive about Johnson - it's a bad issue for them at the moment, but the Tory campaign completely ignoring him doesn't mean the voters will.
Being negative about Lib Dem policy works better at a General Election.
I think the leaflet makes sense as damage limitation. The Tories are trying to minimise the extent of the Lib Dem victory by keeping some supporters onside.
OK, just to be fanciful for a moment - what are the odds on last night's VoNC fiasco for the Tories causing them to come third in both by elections?
Third in both? Lengthy...
And in a way, that's more recoverable for the Conservatives. It looks bad the following morning, but that's all.
The thing that ought to really scare the Conservatives is Libs down to negligible in Wakefield and Lab down to nearly nothing in Tiverton. If the public decide that kicking the Tories is the most important thing, that's what they will do. And there's not a lot that the Conservatives (certainly not these Conservatives) can do about it.
I doubt we will get to "nearly nothing" but I take your point. The public keep showing in poll after poll that they want Forza Boris out of power. Massive tactical voting in both these seats will point the way to a catastrophic drubbing for the former Tory party.
Think about it. They got smashed in 1997, but retained their heartlands. Now we're looking at getting reamed in their heartland, and losing the more interesting chunks of the red wall with it. Retaining seats in Stoke on Trent and shitbox bits of the West Midlands leaves them not only out of office but reliant on idiots like Jonathan Gulles to rebuild.
Its already "Thats not my Conservative Party" like in the kids books, but this temporary shift could become permanent if the Tory since Victorian times seats depart leaving aggressive "giz some money" types in poor places.
This "Forza Boris" stuff is only marginally less tiresome than calling him a fascist. 40% of Conservative MPs just voted against him and many of the others voted with their head rather than their heart.
Just because he has a personality, it doesn't mean there is a personality cult around him.
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
It's proper full-on farming country. It has never returned anything other than a true blue tory.
Recent majorities have been 20,000 on a 60% vote share.
Red Wall seats are normally Labour seats which voted Leave and went Tory in 2019. Blue Wall seats are normally Tory seats which voted Remain and the LDs are targeting.
Tiverton and Honiton voted Leave not Remain so therefore does not fall under the definition of blue wall even if it has always voted Conservative just as Labour Remain seats do not fall under the definition of red wall.
Yes any seat of a less than popular government is vulnerable to the LDs at a by election but a general election is a different matter and if the Tories are going to hold any seat in a by election a Leave seat they won with 60% of the vote or more at the last general election is it
No, that's not what the Red Wall is.
The Red Wall is seats which demographically should have been Tory by 2017 but, for cultural/historical reasons, were still clinging to Labour.
Yes, and the blue wall as properly defined should mean seats that demographically should have been Lib Dem or at least non-Tory in 2019 but still clung on to Conservative (partly through fear of Corbyn).
An absolutely stupid leaflet by the local Tories who utterly miss the point of this byelection. The local MP had to resign in shame because he was watching two upstanding (fnarr fnarr) people having fun on a tractor. The PM has been found to break the law and is correctly regarded by the majority of people as a liar.
So who cares what the LDs want in government? Who cares who they might side with after the election? This isn't about any of those things. This is a byelection protest vote to show the lickspittle Tories who still have confidence in BJ that they are wrong.
"I can vote LibDem now, get a new Tory leader, then vote Tory again at the general election" is the thinking, as it is with any similar byelection.
What utter prannock wrote that leaflet? A waste of cash during the short campaign and a waste of volunteer legs delivering it.
It's the kind of leaflet that activists enjoy writing and perhaps enjoy delivering. But most voters will see "OMG yet more yellow paper from the Lib Dems."
A great tabloid editor is reputed to have said "Who the hell reads the second paragraph?"
An even greater one said "Who the hell reads any paragraphs at all?"
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Sorry to be rude, but the Tory candidate has those mad staring eyes which usually betoken a thyroid disorder.
And the Lib Dem candidate looks like a fraudulent vicar. Something in the teeth.
None of the candidates actually pass muster.
What do you want, Elle McPherson?
A tip for the future - if you're thinking of posting something beginning "Sorry to be rude, but..." which then goes on about the physical attractiveness or otherwise of political candidates, don't do it. It makes you sound like a prick.
I'd say @Gardenwalker sounds middle aged rather than like a prick.
His stereotypical vicar is about 30 years out of date.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
What's 'appening ere is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!!
If I lost £5,000 this year on the gee-gees I would be £5,000 poorer. And that would be true forever. From that year on, every year, I would be that £5k poorer. It's gone
But if I described this to you this way "I'm losing £5k a year on the gee-gees" then that would be a lie, or nonsensical. You'd think I was losing another £5k EVERY YEAR on my terrible gambling habit
By mistakenly adding "a year" to Ellwood's remarks about GDP, Roger made Ellwood sound as daft as Roger always sounds. But of course Ellwood did not say that, he's not as silly as Rogerdamus. Roger misunderstood
In your example Roger has clarified things, because the case of Brexit does indeed correspond to you losing £5k of your income every year for ever. GDP=income=flow per unit of time. National wealth=wealth=stock at a point in time. Losing £5k in one year is equivalent to GDP being x% lower in one year and then returning to its previous path from next year onwards. Losing £5k every year is equivalent to GDP being x% lower than it would have been this year and next year and every year henceforth. This latter case is the one that Ellwood and Roger were referring to.
OK, just to be fanciful for a moment - what are the odds on last night's VoNC fiasco for the Tories causing them to come third in both by elections?
Third in both? Lengthy...
And in a way, that's more recoverable for the Conservatives. It looks bad the following morning, but that's all.
The thing that ought to really scare the Conservatives is Libs down to negligible in Wakefield and Lab down to nearly nothing in Tiverton. If the public decide that kicking the Tories is the most important thing, that's what they will do. And there's not a lot that the Conservatives (certainly not these Conservatives) can do about it.
I doubt we will get to "nearly nothing" but I take your point. The public keep showing in poll after poll that they want Forza Boris out of power. Massive tactical voting in both these seats will point the way to a catastrophic drubbing for the former Tory party.
Think about it. They got smashed in 1997, but retained their heartlands. Now we're looking at getting reamed in their heartland, and losing the more interesting chunks of the red wall with it. Retaining seats in Stoke on Trent and shitbox bits of the West Midlands leaves them not only out of office but reliant on idiots like Jonathan Gulles to rebuild.
Its already "Thats not my Conservative Party" like in the kids books, but this temporary shift could become permanent if the Tory since Victorian times seats depart leaving aggressive "giz some money" types in poor places.
This "Forza Boris" stuff is only marginally less tiresome than calling him a fascist. 40% of Conservative MPs just voted against him and many of the others voted with their head rather than their heart.
Just because he has a personality, it doesn't mean there is a personality cult around him.
40% of Tory MPs want no part in it. They are the remaining members of the old Tory Party, with Jeremy Hunt as their leader in waiting.
As for the rest, if its not a personality cult dedicated to the advancement of the Big Dog then where are its principles? Its policies? Its big ideas? Its consistency?
They stand for literally nothing other than Boris Johnson. Which is what Berlusconi built for himself. And he knew about parties as well...
The other thing is that people love Boris for his indefatigable optimism, his cheery demeanour and his generally infectious good heart.
Without that his USP is much diminished.
Will the vote strip him of the very thing people are attracted to.
Who are these absolutely cretinous idiots who mistake an arrogant arsehole for your flowery description Topping. Is it any wonder the UK is like a banana republic when we have people like that walking the streets.
I used to think he was like Chorlton in Chorlton and the Wheelies. Now i think he's Chorlton if Chorlton had killed half of the wheelies by banging Fenella the witch so hard it knocked her kettle home over on Wheelie Town whilst they were all gathered to celebrate Mayor Wheel's birthday. Which is a long winded, but childhood memory rich way of saying he is a c***
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
I can see Johnson trying all this. The right are, however, deluded if they think this is going to be a vote winner. Look at the polling on the most important issues facing the country: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country It’s not “free speech” and it’s not opposition to doing something about climate change. Immigration and asylum does come in fourth, but it’s way down as a public concern than it used to be.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
That is what Ellwood means though!!! He didn't change it, he meant that, what you think Roger has turned Ellwood's expression into is what Ellwood meant. Ellwood didn't mean a one-off hit but then we've recovered our income afterwards, he meant we've reduced our income by 4% annually, not 4% growth annually, but a permanent 4% hit to income, this year, next year, every year.
It is the economic equivalent of your £5k gee-gees every year, not a one-off £5k loss to gee-gees.
I personally think Ellwood's claim is unmitigated and hubristic bullshit, but what you think Roger means and what Ellwood actually meant are exactly the same thing.
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
Tiverton and Honiton separately have been Tory since 1885. Seats like this are the foundations the wall is built on. You can't have battleground seats without a solid base of seats that will be yours forever.
So there should be no contest here. A quiet by-election where the local association nominates some local rustic with the right breeding who simply shakes hands with the local farmers and tradespeople and walks to a 60% vote share.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
What's 'appening ere is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!!
If I lost £5,000 this year on the gee-gees I would be £5,000 poorer. And that would be true forever. From that year on, every year, I would be that £5k poorer. It's gone
But if I described this to you this way "I'm losing £5k a year on the gee-gees" then that would be a lie, or nonsensical. You'd think I was losing another £5k EVERY YEAR on my terrible gambling habit
By mistakenly adding "a year" to Ellwood's remarks about GDP, Roger made Ellwood sound as daft as Roger always sounds. But of course Ellwood did not say that, he's not as silly as Rogerdamus. Roger misunderstood
Head > Desk > Thump > Picard Facepalm.
Your gee-gees is a one off, its gone forever but it won't be lost again next year.
GDP falls are permanent, what you lose this year you will lose again next year and the year after and the year after that because your flow has been permanently reduced. GDP growth is permanent too, what you gain this year you will gain again next year even with no extra GDP growth because the flow has permanently increased. GDP is every year, what Roger said and what Ellwood said mean exactly the same thing, that is what it means!
No, it doesn't. Because plain English does not work that way: the precise economic definition being used (and definitions of GDP differ significantly) is irrelevant
"A year" is read as "every year"
What Ellwood said originally is quite coherent, but arguable as a stat - "Brexit is reducing our GDP by 4%". When Roger misheard this and turned it into "because of Brexit we are losing 4% GDP a year" he made the statement incoherent, at best, and at worst plain wrong
Sorry to be rude, but the Tory candidate has those mad staring eyes which usually betoken a thyroid disorder.
And the Lib Dem candidate looks like a fraudulent vicar. Something in the teeth.
None of the candidates actually pass muster.
What do you want, Elle McPherson?
A tip for the future - if you're thinking of posting something beginning "Sorry to be rude, but..." which then goes on about the physical attractiveness or otherwise of political candidates, don't do it. It makes you sound like a prick.
I'd say @Gardenwalker sounds middle aged rather than like a prick.
His stereotypical vicar is about 30 years out of date.
These days 40%+ of CofE ordinands are women.
And probably half of the male vicars are gay, certainly the non evangelical ones
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
The equivalent safety in terms of defence of seats for Labour is in the Slough, Bermondsey, Blaenau Gwent range, down to about 70 seats if you lose it and everything above
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
What's 'appening ere is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!!
If I lost £5,000 this year on the gee-gees I would be £5,000 poorer. And that would be true forever. From that year on, every year, I would be that £5k poorer. It's gone
But if I described this to you this way "I'm losing £5k a year on the gee-gees" then that would be a lie, or nonsensical. You'd think I was losing another £5k EVERY YEAR on my terrible gambling habit
By mistakenly adding "a year" to Ellwood's remarks about GDP, Roger made Ellwood sound as daft as Roger always sounds. But of course Ellwood did not say that, he's not as silly as Rogerdamus. Roger misunderstood
Head > Desk > Thump > Picard Facepalm.
Your gee-gees is a one off, its gone forever but it won't be lost again next year.
GDP falls are permanent, what you lose this year you will lose again next year and the year after and the year after that because your flow has been permanently reduced. GDP growth is permanent too, what you gain this year you will gain again next year even with no extra GDP growth because the flow has permanently increased. GDP is every year, what Roger said and what Ellwood said mean exactly the same thing, that is what it means!
No, it doesn't. Because plain English does not work that way: the precise economic definition being used (and definitions of GDP differ significantly) is irrelevant
"A year" is read as "every year"
What Ellwood said originally is quite coherent, but arguable as a stat - "Brexit is reducing our GDP by 4%". When Roger misheard this and turned it into "because of Brexit we are losing 4% GDP a year" he made the statement incoherent, at best, and at worst plain wrong
Every year is correct though.
That is what Ellwood meant, he did mean we have reduced our GDP by 4% every year.
That does not mean GDP growth is falling by 4% every year, since he didn't say GDP growth, he said GDP and GDP != GDP growth. I think the stat is bullshit personally, but that is what Ellwood meant.
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
It's proper full-on farming country. It has never returned anything other than a true blue tory.
Recent majorities have been 20,000 on a 60% vote share.
Red Wall seats are normally Labour seats which voted Leave and went Tory in 2019. Blue Wall seats are normally Tory seats which voted Remain and the LDs are targeting.
Tiverton and Honiton voted Leave not Remain so therefore does not fall under the definition of blue wall even if it has always voted Conservative just as Labour Remain seats do not fall under the definition of red wall.
Yes any seat of a less than popular government is vulnerable to the LDs at a by election but a general election is a different matter and if the Tories are going to hold any seat in a by election a Leave seat they won with 60% of the vote or more at the last general election is it
No, that's not what the Red Wall is.
The Red Wall is seats which demographically should have been Tory by 2017 but, for cultural/historical reasons, were still clinging to Labour.
Yes so that is effectively what the Red Wall is ie historically Labour voting Leave seats, as the Blue Wall is Tory Remain seats.
It is certainly not Labour Remain seats just as the Blue Wall is not Tory Leave seats
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
What's 'appening ere is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!!
If I lost £5,000 this year on the gee-gees I would be £5,000 poorer. And that would be true forever. From that year on, every year, I would be that £5k poorer. It's gone
But if I described this to you this way "I'm losing £5k a year on the gee-gees" then that would be a lie, or nonsensical. You'd think I was losing another £5k EVERY YEAR on my terrible gambling habit
By mistakenly adding "a year" to Ellwood's remarks about GDP, Roger made Ellwood sound as daft as Roger always sounds. But of course Ellwood did not say that, he's not as silly as Rogerdamus. Roger misunderstood
I hesitate to get involved in this but the difference is between a one off effect and an ongoing trend. So, it was initially claimed that the UK would suffer a one off hit as a result of Brexit that would mean any growth going forward would be from a lower base. That didn't happen although there was some currency volatility.
The arguement then evolved to the proposition that what we have suffered was a permanent dimunition in our terms of trade with the result that future growth would be somewhere between 0.2% and 0.4% a year less resulting in our GDP in 10 years time being something like 6% less. As that was a permanently reduced income we would be suffering that from that point forward each year. There are models which show that if you build that assumption in but so far there is no credible evidence that this is happening in the real world. The fact that the UK had higher growth than the EU with that last year is only consistent with that if you think that we would have exceeded the norm by an even bigger margin if we had stayed in. Possible but unlikely.
The years since we left have been far too extraordinary to reach a concluded view on this matter yet. It is possible that such an effect will become visible over time. But the traditional assumption of economic models, ceteris paribus, is frankly absurd because it assumes that no compensating action will be taken or, more accurately, does not allow any such action to count as a compensating figure.
To take a simple example good or bad economic management in this country will have a much larger effect over the period than any alleged diminution in the terms of trade. We should be focusing on that, as I have said already many times this morning.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
That is what Ellwood means though!!! He didn't change it, he meant that, what you think Roger has turned Ellwood's expression into is what Ellwood meant. Ellwood didn't mean a one-off hit but then we've recovered our income afterwards, he meant we've reduced our income by 4% annually, not 4% growth annually, but a permanent 4% hit to income, this year, next year, every year.
It is the economic equivalent of your £5k gee-gees every year, not a one-off £5k loss to gee-gees.
I personally think Ellwood's claim is unmitigated and hubristic bullshit, but what you think Roger means and what Ellwood actually meant are exactly the same thing.
If you turn it around and imagine the statement is about growth, I don't think anyone would interpret "4% a year" as a one off gain of 4% that we then benefit from indefinitely but rather a statement about the ongoing rate of growth.
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Sorry to be rude, but the Tory candidate has those mad staring eyes which usually betoken a thyroid disorder.
And the Lib Dem candidate looks like a fraudulent vicar. Something in the teeth.
None of the candidates actually pass muster.
What do you want, Elle McPherson?
A tip for the future - if you're thinking of posting something beginning "Sorry to be rude, but..." which then goes on about the physical attractiveness or otherwise of political candidates, don't do it. It makes you sound like a prick.
I'd say @Gardenwalker sounds middle aged rather than like a prick.
His stereotypical vicar is about 30 years out of date.
These days 40%+ of CofE ordinands are women.
And probably half of the male vicars are gay, certainly the non evangelical ones
Non evangelical as in, non evangelical plays the first move in a game of chess?
Its funny, because something very, very similar is the top voted post on Conhome today....
Cutting fuel duty is the single biggest change the government could make today, to keep a lid on inflation. Not 5p though, needs to be 50p. The price of fuel feeds into everything else.
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
It's proper full-on farming country. It has never returned anything other than a true blue tory.
Recent majorities have been 20,000 on a 60% vote share.
Red Wall seats are normally Labour seats which voted Leave and went Tory in 2019. Blue Wall seats are normally Tory seats which voted Remain and the LDs are targeting.
Tiverton and Honiton voted Leave not Remain so therefore does not fall under the definition of blue wall even if it has always voted Conservative just as Labour Remain seats do not fall under the definition of red wall.
Yes any seat of a less than popular government is vulnerable to the LDs at a by election but a general election is a different matter and if the Tories are going to hold any seat in a by election a Leave seat they won with 60% of the vote or more at the last general election is it
No, that's not what the Red Wall is.
The Red Wall is seats which demographically should have been Tory by 2017 but, for cultural/historical reasons, were still clinging to Labour.
Yes so that is effectively what the Red Wall is ie historically Labour voting Leave seats, as the Blue Wall is Tory Remain seats.
It is certainly not Labour Remain seats just as the Blue Wall is not Tory Leave seats
For me the Blue Wall is and will always be that vast swathe of Blue constituencies running across southern Britain.
I really couldn't care a less any more how they voted on the EU, and nor should the tories. I do care about the fact that the tories are losing their core supporters.
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
Tiverton and Honiton separately have been Tory since 1885. Seats like this are the foundations the wall is built on. You can't have battleground seats without a solid base of seats that will be yours forever.
So there should be no contest here. A quiet by-election where the local association nominates some local rustic with the right breeding who simply shakes hands with the local farmers and tradespeople and walks to a 60% vote share.
When did that ever happen with a government party in midterm?
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
Good Tory leaflet in Tiverton and Honiton. It is a Leave voting and traditional Tory area and hitting the LDs hard on their opposition to Brexit and tighter border controls and tougher prison sentences will go down well there. Also ensures the literature is not all one way from the Liberals.
The Conservative candidate is a well known local woman and I think has a chance of holding the seat which the Tories won with 60% of the vote in 2019. Most Labour voters will tactically vote LD anyway, to have a chance of holding on the Tories need to keep their core vote and get them out to vote
Typical Tory smear-campaigning, devoid of any positive reason to vote for them at all.
I guess you have never had a LD Focus if you think they are full of positive reasons to vote for them, over half of LD literature is normally negative about the local Tory or Labour council or the government!
Of course, young HY, because most councils are run by Labour or Conservative people, and they do it very badly. There is a negative impact on people's lives. So there is a lot to criticise.
And the present central government is 100% Conservative, and people are suffering very badly.
For example, Devon receives an unfairly low level of funding for education from Central government, and Devon's Conservative MPs do nothing at all about it. Devon's Conservative County councillors try to pretend that the policy of the Conservative government in Westminster is nothing to do with them. They too need to be held to account. And that means criticism. Good. The Lib Dems are doing a good job.
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
Tiverton and Honiton separately have been Tory since 1885. Seats like this are the foundations the wall is built on. You can't have battleground seats without a solid base of seats that will be yours forever.
So there should be no contest here. A quiet by-election where the local association nominates some local rustic with the right breeding who simply shakes hands with the local farmers and tradespeople and walks to a 60% vote share.
Good Tory leaflet in Tiverton and Honiton. It is a Leave voting and traditional Tory area and hitting the LDs hard on their opposition to Brexit and tighter border controls and tougher prison sentences will go down well there. Also ensures the literature is not all one way from the Liberals.
The Conservative candidate is a well known local woman and I think has a chance of holding the seat which the Tories won with 60% of the vote in 2019. Most Labour voters will tactically vote LD anyway, to have a chance of holding on the Tories need to keep their core vote and get them out to vote
You do know that is nonsense don't you. Most leaflets are not read. They last 10 seconds from the door to the bin. The impact is getting a leaflet. A nice big yellow one with Lib Dem plastered over the top of it.
So for everyone reading the Tory lies on it, 20 will register another LD leaflet and lack of one from the Tories.
In 20 seconds anyone receiving it will read the LDs want to reverse Brexit, voted against plans to strengthen our borders, voted against tougher sentences, want higher fuel duty and would put Labour in government now.
Even if they put it in the bin a minute after receiving it
If you want to put out yellow leaflets with a heading of Key things to know about the Liberal Democrats in big bold headline, knock yourself out. You might even get some funding from the LDs.
No wonder the Tories are useless at by elections
Also the idea that a candidates time is best spent canvassing 0.0001% of the electorate or even delivering (what) is bonkers. Get them seen out and about.
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
It's proper full-on farming country. It has never returned anything other than a true blue tory.
Recent majorities have been 20,000 on a 60% vote share.
Red Wall seats are normally Labour seats which voted Leave and went Tory in 2019. Blue Wall seats are normally Tory seats which voted Remain and the LDs are targeting.
Tiverton and Honiton voted Leave not Remain so therefore does not fall under the definition of blue wall even if it has always voted Conservative just as Labour Remain seats do not fall under the definition of red wall.
Yes any seat of a less than popular government is vulnerable to the LDs at a by election but a general election is a different matter and if the Tories are going to hold any seat in a by election a Leave seat they won with 60% of the vote or more at the last general election is it
No, that's not what the Red Wall is.
The Red Wall is seats which demographically should have been Tory by 2017 but, for cultural/historical reasons, were still clinging to Labour.
Yes so that is effectively what the Red Wall is ie historically Labour voting Leave seats, as the Blue Wall is Tory Remain seats.
It is certainly not Labour Remain seats just as the Blue Wall is not Tory Leave seats
For me the Blue Wall is and will always be that vast swathe of Blue constituencies running across southern Britain.
I really couldn't care a less any more how they voted on the EU, and nor should the tories. I do care about the fact that the tories are losing their core supporters.
They are losing some Remain Tories, not Leave voting traditional Tory voters.
53% of 2016 Leave voters are still voting Conservative but only 15% of 2016 Remain voters are now voting Conservative
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
That is what Ellwood means though!!! He didn't change it, he meant that, what you think Roger has turned Ellwood's expression into is what Ellwood meant. Ellwood didn't mean a one-off hit but then we've recovered our income afterwards, he meant we've reduced our income by 4% annually, not 4% growth annually, but a permanent 4% hit to income, this year, next year, every year.
It is the economic equivalent of your £5k gee-gees every year, not a one-off £5k loss to gee-gees.
I personally think Ellwood's claim is unmitigated and hubristic bullshit, but what you think Roger means and what Ellwood actually meant are exactly the same thing.
If you turn it around and imagine the statement is about growth, I don't think anyone would interpret "4% a year" as a one off gain of 4% that we then benefit from indefinitely but rather a statement about the ongoing rate of growth.
We saw the same headlines when pensions went up by 3% rather than 8% this year - something that, according to some newspapers, meant that pensioners ‘missed out on £10k’ over 25 years. It’s technically correct, but still highly misleading.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
What's 'appening ere is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!!
If I lost £5,000 this year on the gee-gees I would be £5,000 poorer. And that would be true forever. From that year on, every year, I would be that £5k poorer. It's gone
But if I described this to you this way "I'm losing £5k a year on the gee-gees" then that would be a lie, or nonsensical. You'd think I was losing another £5k EVERY YEAR on my terrible gambling habit
By mistakenly adding "a year" to Ellwood's remarks about GDP, Roger made Ellwood sound as daft as Roger always sounds. But of course Ellwood did not say that, he's not as silly as Rogerdamus. Roger misunderstood
I hesitate to get involved in this but the difference is between a one off effect and an ongoing trend. So, it was initially claimed that the UK would suffer a one off hit as a result of Brexit that would mean any growth going forward would be from a lower base. That didn't happen although there was some currency volatility.
The arguement then evolved to the proposition that what we have suffered was a permanent dimunition in our terms of trade with the result that future growth would be somewhere between 0.2% and 0.4% a year less resulting in our GDP in 10 years time being something like 6% less. As that was a permanently reduced income we would be suffering that from that point forward each year. There are models which show that if you build that assumption in but so far there is no credible evidence that this is happening in the real world. The fact that the UK had higher growth than the EU with that last year is only consistent with that if you think that we would have exceeded the norm by an even bigger margin if we had stayed in. Possible but unlikely.
The years since we left have been far too extraordinary to reach a concluded view on this matter yet. It is possible that such an effect will become visible over time. But the traditional assumption of economic models, ceteris paribus, is frankly absurd because it assumes that no compensating action will be taken or, more accurately, does not allow any such action to count as a compensating figure.
To take a simple example good or bad economic management in this country will have a much larger effect over the period than any alleged diminution in the terms of trade. We should be focusing on that, as I have said already many times this morning.
I disagree that Brexit will have a permanent effect on GDP growth but I do think that it will have and indeed already has had a permanent effect on the level of GDP, and that permanent level effect will occur gradually over a period of time so will show up as a temporary effect on GDP growth. Whether you approach this question from first principles using an economic model, compare the UK's recent performance to a counterfactual using comparable countries, or simply eyeball a chart of GDP, you get a similar answer. Of course there is a lot of noise from Covid and nothing in economics is ever certain, but the view that Brexit has had a measurable negative effect on the level of GDP is the mainstream one among people who are paid to look at these things. This discussion is entirely separate from the one we are having with @Leon, which simply stems from his inability to admit that he got something wrong.
After all the spine-tingling excitement of yesterday, today feels like a total non-event, doesn't it? Disappointingly dull (apart from the scintillating GDP debate, of course).
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
Tiverton and Honiton separately have been Tory since 1885. Seats like this are the foundations the wall is built on. You can't have battleground seats without a solid base of seats that will be yours forever.
So there should be no contest here. A quiet by-election where the local association nominates some local rustic with the right breeding who simply shakes hands with the local farmers and tradespeople and walks to a 60% vote share.
When did that ever happen with a government party in midterm?
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
It's proper full-on farming country. It has never returned anything other than a true blue tory.
Recent majorities have been 20,000 on a 60% vote share.
Red Wall seats are normally Labour seats which voted Leave and went Tory in 2019. Blue Wall seats are normally Tory seats which voted Remain and the LDs are targeting.
Tiverton and Honiton voted Leave not Remain so therefore does not fall under the definition of blue wall even if it has always voted Conservative just as Labour Remain seats do not fall under the definition of red wall.
Yes any seat of a less than popular government is vulnerable to the LDs at a by election but a general election is a different matter and if the Tories are going to hold any seat in a by election a Leave seat they won with 60% of the vote or more at the last general election is it
No, that's not what the Red Wall is.
The Red Wall is seats which demographically should have been Tory by 2017 but, for cultural/historical reasons, were still clinging to Labour.
Yes so that is effectively what the Red Wall is ie historically Labour voting Leave seats, as the Blue Wall is Tory Remain seats.
It is certainly not Labour Remain seats just as the Blue Wall is not Tory Leave seats
For me the Blue Wall is and will always be that vast swathe of Blue constituencies running across southern Britain.
I really couldn't care a less any more how they voted on the EU, and nor should the tories. I do care about the fact that the tories are losing their core supporters.
They are losing some Remain Tories, not Leave Tories.
53% of 2016 Leave voters are still voting Conservative but only 15% of 2016 Remain voters are now voting Conservative
Do you think you will ever, in your lifetime, forget about that vote back in 2016? It's six long years ago now and the country, let alone the world, is no longer defined by it.
(There's also of course a huge fallacy in using Leave/Remain as indicators because you can apply two dozen other characteristics of either 'side' that would be as equally valid ... but you know what? I really can't be bothered.)
After all the spine-tingling excitement of yesterday, today feels like a total non-event, doesn't it? Disappointingly dull (apart from the scintillating GDP debate, of course).
Yes. And I wish we had been granted a longer build up. A few days would have ramped things up nicely.
@vonderburchard Confronted by a reporter with widespread criticism over 🇩🇪 weapon deliveries, Scholz doubles down:
"Germany is one of the most important military supporters of Ukraine. No one else is providing as much as Germany is doing. There are a few that also do a lot, like the U.S."
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
It won't save it.
Tories wont bother turning out. It will of course revert at the GE but for the by election there is no impetus to show up
Give a new local MP 2 years to make their mark. Throw in Johnson still clinging to power like a shipwrecked sailor on a burning plank and no resolution to the energy or cost of living issues and I would not be at all surprised to see the Lib Dems retaining the seat at the next GE.
And, of course, for the record I am not pumping them up as I don't support the Lib Dems at all. It just seems complacent to think it will revert just because it is supposedly a Tory seat.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
What's 'appening ere is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!!
If I lost £5,000 this year on the gee-gees I would be £5,000 poorer. And that would be true forever. From that year on, every year, I would be that £5k poorer. It's gone
But if I described this to you this way "I'm losing £5k a year on the gee-gees" then that would be a lie, or nonsensical. You'd think I was losing another £5k EVERY YEAR on my terrible gambling habit
By mistakenly adding "a year" to Ellwood's remarks about GDP, Roger made Ellwood sound as daft as Roger always sounds. But of course Ellwood did not say that, he's not as silly as Rogerdamus. Roger misunderstood
I hesitate to get involved in this but the difference is between a one off effect and an ongoing trend. So, it was initially claimed that the UK would suffer a one off hit as a result of Brexit that would mean any growth going forward would be from a lower base. That didn't happen although there was some currency volatility.
The arguement then evolved to the proposition that what we have suffered was a permanent dimunition in our terms of trade with the result that future growth would be somewhere between 0.2% and 0.4% a year less resulting in our GDP in 10 years time being something like 6% less. As that was a permanently reduced income we would be suffering that from that point forward each year. There are models which show that if you build that assumption in but so far there is no credible evidence that this is happening in the real world. The fact that the UK had higher growth than the EU with that last year is only consistent with that if you think that we would have exceeded the norm by an even bigger margin if we had stayed in. Possible but unlikely.
The years since we left have been far too extraordinary to reach a concluded view on this matter yet. It is possible that such an effect will become visible over time. But the traditional assumption of economic models, ceteris paribus, is frankly absurd because it assumes that no compensating action will be taken or, more accurately, does not allow any such action to count as a compensating figure.
To take a simple example good or bad economic management in this country will have a much larger effect over the period than any alleged diminution in the terms of trade. We should be focusing on that, as I have said already many times this morning.
Actually there are plenty of models showing hits of 4% to 8% to GDP, which is pretty much the consensus view amongst economists, while there are essentially no credible models that I'm aware of indicating growth or no change because of Brexit.
Which kind of fits in with the common sense point that if introduced trade barriers result in less trade AND ALSO make your economy less interesting to invest in, you will end up being permanently poorer.
I'm not counting as models random people on the internet calling bullshit because none of this fits in with their priors .
Good Tory leaflet in Tiverton and Honiton. It is a Leave voting and traditional Tory area and hitting the LDs hard on their opposition to Brexit and tighter border controls and tougher prison sentences will go down well there. Also ensures the literature is not all one way from the Liberals.
The Conservative candidate is a well known local woman and I think has a chance of holding the seat which the Tories won with 60% of the vote in 2019. Most Labour voters will tactically vote LD anyway, to have a chance of holding on the Tories need to keep their core vote and get them out to vote
You do know that is nonsense don't you. Most leaflets are not read. They last 10 seconds from the door to the bin. The impact is getting a leaflet. A nice big yellow one with Lib Dem plastered over the top of it.
So for everyone reading the Tory lies on it, 20 will register another LD leaflet and lack of one from the Tories.
In 20 seconds anyone receiving it will read the LDs want to reverse Brexit, voted against plans to strengthen our borders, voted against tougher sentences, want higher fuel duty and would put Labour in government now.
Having read it, it would make me vote LD if I lived there.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
@vonderburchard Confronted by a reporter with widespread criticism over 🇩🇪 weapon deliveries, Scholz doubles down:
"Germany is one of the most important military supporters of Ukraine. No one else is providing as much as Germany is doing. There are a few that also do a lot, like the U.S."
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
@vonderburchard Confronted by a reporter with widespread criticism over 🇩🇪 weapon deliveries, Scholz doubles down:
"Germany is one of the most important military supporters of Ukraine. No one else is providing as much as Germany is doing. There are a few that also do a lot, like the U.S."
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
It won't save it.
Tories wont bother turning out. It will of course revert at the GE but for the by election there is no impetus to show up
Give a new local MP 2 years to make their mark. Throw in Johnson still clinging to power like a shipwrecked sailor on a burning plank and no resolution to the energy or cost of living issues and I would not be at all surprised to see the Lib Dems retaining the seat at the next GE.
And, of course, for the record I am not pumping them up as I don't support the Lib Dems at all. It just seems complacent to think it will revert just because it is supposedly a Tory seat.
In 1993 the Tories lost Christchurch to the LDs in a by election but won it back at the 1997 general election. In 2016 the Tories lost Richmond Park to the LDs at a by election but won it back at the 2017 general election. In summer 2019 the Tories lost Brecon and Radnor to the LDs in a by election but won it back in the December general election. It often happens
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
It won't save it.
Tories wont bother turning out. It will of course revert at the GE but for the by election there is no impetus to show up
Give a new local MP 2 years to make their mark. Throw in Johnson still clinging to power like a shipwrecked sailor on a burning plank and no resolution to the energy or cost of living issues and I would not be at all surprised to see the Lib Dems retaining the seat at the next GE.
And, of course, for the record I am not pumping them up as I don't support the Lib Dems at all. It just seems complacent to think it will revert just because it is supposedly a Tory seat.
Indeed a lot of the seats taken from the Tories in the 1992-1997 parliament didn’t revert until 2015 and the Lib Dem collapse. It is never wise to assume a seat lost in a by election will automatically revert to ‘type’, particularly given the fact this government is slowly dying.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Assuming the growth rate is unchanged by the initial hit, I think that's right, but I had to work through some numbers to grasp it, it feels a little non-intuitive.
Let's say we're in an environment where the medium term GDP growth is 2% pa - over 10 years GDP will grow from 100 to 122.
Now if we apply a one off 4% hit at the start, we're starting from 96 and if the growth rate is the same, GDP ends up at 117 after 10 years, still 4% lower.
That being said, if the one off 4% hit doesn't affect the absolute GDP growth, then it still goes up by 22, just from a lower base, and ends the 10 years at 118, which is now only 3% lower so in time the effect erodes. I have no idea if this concept is economically sound though!
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
It's proper full-on farming country. It has never returned anything other than a true blue tory.
Recent majorities have been 20,000 on a 60% vote share.
Red Wall seats are normally Labour seats which voted Leave and went Tory in 2019. Blue Wall seats are normally Tory seats which voted Remain and the LDs are targeting.
Tiverton and Honiton voted Leave not Remain so therefore does not fall under the definition of blue wall even if it has always voted Conservative just as Labour Remain seats do not fall under the definition of red wall.
Yes any seat of a less than popular government is vulnerable to the LDs at a by election but a general election is a different matter and if the Tories are going to hold any seat in a by election a Leave seat they won with 60% of the vote or more at the last general election is it
No, that's not what the Red Wall is.
The Red Wall is seats which demographically should have been Tory by 2017 but, for cultural/historical reasons, were still clinging to Labour.
Yes so that is effectively what the Red Wall is ie historically Labour voting Leave seats, as the Blue Wall is Tory Remain seats.
It is certainly not Labour Remain seats just as the Blue Wall is not Tory Leave seats
For me the Blue Wall is and will always be that vast swathe of Blue constituencies running across southern Britain.
I really couldn't care a less any more how they voted on the EU, and nor should the tories. I do care about the fact that the tories are losing their core supporters.
They are losing some Remain Tories, not Leave Tories.
53% of 2016 Leave voters are still voting Conservative but only 15% of 2016 Remain voters are now voting Conservative
Do you think you will ever, in your lifetime, forget about that vote back in 2016? It's six long years ago now and the country, let alone the world, is no longer defined by it.
(There's also of course a huge fallacy in using Leave/Remain as indicators because you can apply two dozen other characteristics of either 'side' that would be as equally valid ... but you know what? I really can't be bothered.)
Yes it is still defined by it in large part.
Look at the local elections last month, the Tories lost Remain voting Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, West Oxfordshire and Tunbridge Wells.
However the Tories gained seats in Leave voting Newcastle under Lyme and Harlow and held Walsall and Dudley
A chap I knew actually wrote a shuttle landing simulator for the space shuttle - it was designed for a laptop format Sparc station (IIRC) that would be velcro'd in position on the actual space shuttle in orbit. The pilots could then practise landings. The idea was that they could practise landings on longer missions.
According to him, they programmed it with the various aerodynamic coefficients etc for the actual Shuttle. It was an early example of a flight simulator based on actual physics.
No one in the team could land it - crashed every time.
A bit worried, after some checking of their work, they asked someone from the astronaut office to come and try it.
The astronaut did a bunch of landings, apparently quite easily. He thanked them for the quality of the work....
Ha ha, brilliant story!
The Shuttle landing was totally nuts to even experienced pilots, an insane exercise in energy management that sees the thing drop tens of thousands of feet per minute, all programmed into a flight director on a head-up display, to keep the pilot on course. Oh, and it’s a glider, so no going around around if you get it wrong!
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Assuming the growth rate is unchanged by the initial hit, I think that's right, but I had to work through some numbers to grasp it, it feels a little non-intuitive.
Let's say we're in an environment where the medium term GDP growth is 2% pa - over 10 years GDP will grow from 100 to 122.
Now if we apply a one off 4% hit at the start, we're starting from 96 and if the growth rate is the same, GDP ends up at 117 after 10 years, still 4% lower.
That being said, if the one off 4% hit doesn't affect the absolute GDP growth, then it still goes up by 22, just from a lower base, and ends the 10 years at 118, which is now only 3% lower so in time the effect erodes. I have no idea if this concept is economically sound though!
If GDP falls by 4% and then grows by whatever % per year it was going to then it will still be 4% lower than it would have been at all future points in time. In absolute terms that effect grows because 4% of a bigger number is larger.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
Not well written, as it only focusses on the alcoholics. The BBC report yesterday was more balanced. The policy was generally successful in reducing the problems caused by very cheap alcohol. It's the specific alcoholics that have not cut down.
The term "Red Wall" was coined in August 2019. So it had nowt to do with how anywhere voted some months later than that. It originally referred to the continuous line of Labour constituencies roughly straddling the M62. So. A specific geographical entity. As such it had some utility as a shorthand. The trouble now is it is used by folk of all stripes to refer to their own cherry picked definition of seats to prove whichever political point they are trying to make at the time. It's as good as useless if no one can agree what it is.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
It won't save it.
Tories wont bother turning out. It will of course revert at the GE but for the by election there is no impetus to show up
Give a new local MP 2 years to make their mark. Throw in Johnson still clinging to power like a shipwrecked sailor on a burning plank and no resolution to the energy or cost of living issues and I would not be at all surprised to see the Lib Dems retaining the seat at the next GE.
And, of course, for the record I am not pumping them up as I don't support the Lib Dems at all. It just seems complacent to think it will revert just because it is supposedly a Tory seat.
In 1993 the Tories lost Christchurch to the LDs in a by election but won it back at the 1997 general election. In 2016 the Tories lost Richmond Park to the LDs at a by election but won it back at the 2017 general election. In summer 2019 the Tories lost Brecon and Radnor to the LDs in a by election but won it back in the December general election. It often happens
It usually happens, but it doesn’t always happen. The LDs won back Richmond Park in 2019. They held Brent East in 2005 after first winning it in the 2003 by-election. They held Romney at the 2001 general after winning it in a by-election the year before. They first won Eastleigh in a 1994 by-election and kept winning in the seat until 2015.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
Your leg isn't a flow. The miles per hour you can walk if you lose a leg might be reduced and it will be reduced this hour and every other hour.
As far as I am aware (no doubt someone can correct this on something odd) flows must have a unit of time associated with them, many of these are used by default - eg miles per hour etc, by convention GDP is measured by years, so adding "a year" to a flow measured in years is redundant and doesn't change its meaning whatsoever.
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
It won't save it.
Tories wont bother turning out. It will of course revert at the GE but for the by election there is no impetus to show up
Give a new local MP 2 years to make their mark. Throw in Johnson still clinging to power like a shipwrecked sailor on a burning plank and no resolution to the energy or cost of living issues and I would not be at all surprised to see the Lib Dems retaining the seat at the next GE.
And, of course, for the record I am not pumping them up as I don't support the Lib Dems at all. It just seems complacent to think it will revert just because it is supposedly a Tory seat.
Indeed a lot of the seats taken from the Tories in the 1992-1997 parliament didn’t revert until 2015 and the Lib Dem collapse. It is never wise to assume a seat lost in a by election will automatically revert to ‘type’, particularly given the fact this government is slowly dying.
There will be a few thousand tories sitting on their hands who turn out at the GE and the by election tacticals and protest unwind kick in too. See Brecon etc LDs will get nowhere near T and H at a GE imo. Nor North Shropshire. Maybe Chesham but i doubt it. This is not 1997 and until polling shows us headed there then i cant see these safe seats doing anything but return to type... further down the tree however.....
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
What's 'appening ere is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!!
If I lost £5,000 this year on the gee-gees I would be £5,000 poorer. And that would be true forever. From that year on, every year, I would be that £5k poorer. It's gone
But if I described this to you this way "I'm losing £5k a year on the gee-gees" then that would be a lie, or nonsensical. You'd think I was losing another £5k EVERY YEAR on my terrible gambling habit
By mistakenly adding "a year" to Ellwood's remarks about GDP, Roger made Ellwood sound as daft as Roger always sounds. But of course Ellwood did not say that, he's not as silly as Rogerdamus. Roger misunderstood
I hesitate to get involved in this but the difference is between a one off effect and an ongoing trend. So, it was initially claimed that the UK would suffer a one off hit as a result of Brexit that would mean any growth going forward would be from a lower base. That didn't happen although there was some currency volatility.
The arguement then evolved to the proposition that what we have suffered was a permanent dimunition in our terms of trade with the result that future growth would be somewhere between 0.2% and 0.4% a year less resulting in our GDP in 10 years time being something like 6% less. As that was a permanently reduced income we would be suffering that from that point forward each year. There are models which show that if you build that assumption in but so far there is no credible evidence that this is happening in the real world. The fact that the UK had higher growth than the EU with that last year is only consistent with that if you think that we would have exceeded the norm by an even bigger margin if we had stayed in. Possible but unlikely.
The years since we left have been far too extraordinary to reach a concluded view on this matter yet. It is possible that such an effect will become visible over time. But the traditional assumption of economic models, ceteris paribus, is frankly absurd because it assumes that no compensating action will be taken or, more accurately, does not allow any such action to count as a compensating figure.
To take a simple example good or bad economic management in this country will have a much larger effect over the period than any alleged diminution in the terms of trade. We should be focusing on that, as I have said already many times this morning.
I disagree that Brexit will have a permanent effect on GDP growth but I do think that it will have and indeed already has had a permanent effect on the level of GDP, and that permanent level effect will occur gradually over a period of time so will show up as a temporary effect on GDP growth. Whether you approach this question from first principles using an economic model, compare the UK's recent performance to a counterfactual using comparable countries, or simply eyeball a chart of GDP, you get a similar answer. Of course there is a lot of noise from Covid and nothing in economics is ever certain, but the view that Brexit has had a measurable negative effect on the level of GDP is the mainstream one among people who are paid to look at these things. This discussion is entirely separate from the one we are having with @Leon, which simply stems from his inability to admit that he got something wrong.
If you build an adverse assumption into a model then the outcome is arithmetic, not economics. The validity of the assumption is the relevant factor, not the validity of the model.
If you don't think that Brexit will have a permanent effect on GDP growth why is this going to change from the arithmetical model? I would assume that is because you recognise that over time compensatory steps will be taken that will offset it. My point is that a government that was paying attention would be making such compensatory steps now. We saw a little bit of this in Truss's new trade deals but clearly they were not enough on their own and in most cases simply gave us back a bit of what had been lost.
But by improving our economic performance domestically we can do better. The government and the opposition are not showing any signs of focusing on this, which is unfortunate. It is, ultimately, what actually matters.
Given that Blockbuster is a fondly remembered but very much defunct video rental store, saying that the PM will create a 'blockbuster health system in the age of netflix' is quite damning. What next, a Kays catalogue NHS in an age of Amazon?
A chap I knew actually wrote a shuttle landing simulator for the space shuttle - it was designed for a laptop format Sparc station (IIRC) that would be velcro'd in position on the actual space shuttle in orbit. The pilots could then practise landings. The idea was that they could practise landings on longer missions.
According to him, they programmed it with the various aerodynamic coefficients etc for the actual Shuttle. It was an early example of a flight simulator based on actual physics.
No one in the team could land it - crashed every time.
A bit worried, after some checking of their work, they asked someone from the astronaut office to come and try it.
The astronaut did a bunch of landings, apparently quite easily. He thanked them for the quality of the work....
Ha ha, brilliant story!
The Shuttle landing was totally nuts to even experienced pilots, an insane exercise in energy management that sees the thing drop tens of thousands of feet per minute, all programmed into a flight director on a head-up display, to keep the pilot on course. Oh, and it’s a glider, so no going around around if you get it wrong!
My understanding is that only once was the shuttle approach flown manually - every other time it was done by computer.
They had a flight director programmed with the profile, but not an auto pilot. The Commander had to use stick and rudder for the last 5 minutes or so, keeping to the descent profile with reference to the HUD. Keep the cross in the circle, same as with any other aircraft!
It may have been that on one occasion the FD failed, and the pilot had to wing it on raw data - which must have been scary as f***, even with all the training.
In 2016, there were 408 constituencies voting leave, one tie (to 1 decimal place), 241 voting remain.
The median leave figure was about 54% leave, so you would have needed about a 4% swing on average to get to a bare majority of constituencies voting remain.
@vonderburchard Confronted by a reporter with widespread criticism over 🇩🇪 weapon deliveries, Scholz doubles down:
"Germany is one of the most important military supporters of Ukraine. No one else is providing as much as Germany is doing. There are a few that also do a lot, like the U.S."
Sorry to be rude, but the Tory candidate has those mad staring eyes which usually betoken a thyroid disorder...
In the case of Tory candidates isn't it more usually just madness ?
Surely that is a qualification for standing in the first place. Who would want to enter a career where people think its ok to boo you because you go for a meal at a place where your son is working. Sane people simply no longer apply for the post.
Given that Blockbuster is a fondly remembered but very much defunct video rental store, saying that the PM will create a 'blockbuster health system in the age of netflix' is quite damning. What next, a Kays catalogue NHS in an age of Amazon?
I see this has been very much spotted and discussed upthread...
I can't help but think the original statement was that he wanted to change the NHS as it was currently a Blockbuster system in an age of Netflix. It's the only way it makes sense. Duplication of services like thousands of VHS tapes sitting identically in every store, rather than people accessing bespoke care when they wanted it or some such twaddle.
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
We have two very sound economists on here. One who sleeps with the angels* the other who doesn't but I've just had a very enlightening lesson as I followed Bartholomew and OnlyLivingBoy trying patiently to explain some basics to Leon.
To be fair the subtlety of GDP and GDP per annum was something I also didn't understand but unlike Leon who was last seen still arguing the point at least I do now!
* A lefty
As we said, GDP is a flow and trying to understand it and its nuances properly is like the economic equivalent of fluid dynamics, difficult but not that interesting to most people.
Except, Ellwood did not say "a year". I was right
If Roger hadn't added that "a year", coz he misheard (or misunderstood?), then there would have been no argument and none of us would have wasted fifteen bloody hours
Have we taken a permanent hit of 4% to our economic output? Quite possibly. Brexit is a drag. Tho it is extremely hard to be precise because of huge confounding factors, namely Plague and War
He didn't need to say "a year" because it is tautologically redundant.
Just as the words I just used, all tautologies are redundant.
Arguably adding "each year" clarifies the statement as it indicates that the stated effect is permanent rather than a one-off. I think Leon's confusion stems from a failure to appreciate that GDP is a flow concept like income, not a stock concept like wealth. This is a mistake made by a surprisingly large number of people. The level of basic economic knowledge, and indeed basic numeracy, in this country is shocking sometimes. In my more charitable moments I imagine that this is probably why the PM keeps lying about things - he genuinely has no concept of numbers. I wonder what his highest STEM qualification is?
Continuously saying "Look here, I'm an economist!" does not make you right
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
This exchange is starting to make me think about the wrestling a pig quotation. But I will try again. GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual. Do you disagree with the statement above?
Again, I'm talking about English, not economics. Nobody talks about GDP like this in terms of loss or gain. No one adds the words "a year" because it is misleading, and it is construed as a further, additional loss. Which is why Ellwood didn't say it
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
Your leg isn't a flow. The miles per hour you can walk if you lose a leg might be reduced and it will be reduced this hour and every other hour.
As far as I am aware (no doubt someone can correct this on something odd) flows must have a unit of time associated with them, many of these are used by default - eg miles per hour etc, by convention GDP is measured by years, so adding "a year" to a flow measured in years is redundant and doesn't change its meaning whatsoever.
You don't understand. What you have to say, as @OnlyLivingBoy has told us, is "each year", not "a year"
So Tobias Ellwood should have said "Brexit means we lose 4% of GDP each year". And that would be, like, totally true, right? Completely accurate and not at all misleading?
I mean, no one, reading that, would think JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THE BREXIT ECONOMY IS GOING TO SHRINK 4% EVERY YEAR
No. Instead, everyone would shrug and say "that's fine, it's a concept of flow"
Given that Blockbuster is a fondly remembered but very much defunct video rental store, saying that the PM will create a 'blockbuster health system in the age of netflix' is quite damning. What next, a Kays catalogue NHS in an age of Amazon?
It’s “blockbuster” with a small ‘b’, so he just means “very good”.
Wow, Scholz now with a very bold statement that won't survive a fact check:
"We will continue to support Ukraine with arms deliveries. Germany is doing this MORE INTENSIVELY THAN ALMOST ANYONE ELSE & will continue support as long as it's necessary to repel 🇷🇺 aggression."
(My 50 cent: Saying this in the Baltics, whose support for Ukraine in relation to GDP absolutely dwarfs Germany, sounds pretty arrogant. Also in total terms other countries have delivered more weapons; and heavy 🇩🇪 weapons still have to arrive to 🇺🇦)
Final thought on this GDP conversation, lets switch to another flow example - petrol is about 50p a litre more expensive than it was previously.
That doesn't mean it that the first litre I buy is 50p more expensive, then the rest return to the same price, it means every litre is 50p more expensive.
If GDP takes a 4% hit then that means every year's GDP is 4% lower unless something changes that in the future, not just this years, just as every litre is 50p more expensive not just the first one.
If that doesn't explain it to you Leon, I don't know what else can. Have fun everybody.
A chap I knew actually wrote a shuttle landing simulator for the space shuttle - it was designed for a laptop format Sparc station (IIRC) that would be velcro'd in position on the actual space shuttle in orbit. The pilots could then practise landings. The idea was that they could practise landings on longer missions.
According to him, they programmed it with the various aerodynamic coefficients etc for the actual Shuttle. It was an early example of a flight simulator based on actual physics.
No one in the team could land it - crashed every time.
A bit worried, after some checking of their work, they asked someone from the astronaut office to come and try it.
The astronaut did a bunch of landings, apparently quite easily. He thanked them for the quality of the work....
Ha ha, brilliant story!
The Shuttle landing was totally nuts to even experienced pilots, an insane exercise in energy management that sees the thing drop tens of thousands of feet per minute, all programmed into a flight director on a head-up display, to keep the pilot on course. Oh, and it’s a glider, so no going around around if you get it wrong!
My understanding is that only once was the shuttle approach flown manually - every other time it was done by computer.
They had a flight director programmed with the profile, but not an auto pilot. The Commander had to use stick and rudder for the last 5 minutes or so, keeping to the descent profile with reference to the HUD. Keep the cross in the circle, same as with any other aircraft!
It may have been that on one occasion the FD failed, and the pilot had to wing it on raw data - which must have been scary as f***, even with all the training.
"Veteran WWII Glider Pilots allowed to fly the Shuttle simulator drew praise from Shuttle pilots as they brought the massive "glider" to a safe landing within feet of the designated touchdown mark."
Given that Blockbuster is a fondly remembered but very much defunct video rental store, saying that the PM will create a 'blockbuster health system in the age of netflix' is quite damning. What next, a Kays catalogue NHS in an age of Amazon?
Softening us up for the return of ciggy coupon healthcare.
Wow, Scholz now with a very bold statement that won't survive a fact check:
"We will continue to support Ukraine with arms deliveries. Germany is doing this MORE INTENSIVELY THAN ALMOST ANYONE ELSE & will continue support as long as it's necessary to repel 🇷🇺 aggression."
(My 50 cent: Saying this in the Baltics, whose support for Ukraine in relation to GDP absolutely dwarfs Germany, sounds pretty arrogant. Also in total terms other countries have delivered more weapons; and heavy 🇩🇪 weapons still have to arrive to 🇺🇦)
It's also bullshit in terms of refugees. Poland, Moldova, the Baltics, etc, have all taken way more refugees per capita. Poland has taken more in absolute terms
I can't work out if Scholz is simply inept, or actively mendacious and malign
Given that Blockbuster is a fondly remembered but very much defunct video rental store, saying that the PM will create a 'blockbuster health system in the age of netflix' is quite damning. What next, a Kays catalogue NHS in an age of Amazon?
It’s “blockbuster” with a small ‘b’, so he just means “very good”.
On topic, I think this is a good tactic by the Tories. Everyone knows the LDs are the main risk so i don’t see any downside with prioritising on the LD threat (if anything, it might get some in Labour complaining they aren’t being taken seriously). It’s also the sorts of claims that forces an opponent to answer - who can let the claim they are soft on child sex offences go unanswered? I’d also expect the Tories to start highlighting Davey’s comments about ‘what exactly is a woman’
Sorry to be rude, but the Tory candidate has those mad staring eyes which usually betoken a thyroid disorder...
In the case of Tory candidates isn't it more usually just madness ?
Surely that is a qualification for standing in the first place. Who would want to enter a career where people think its ok to boo you because you go for a meal at a place where your son is working. Sane people simply no longer apply for the post.
No, they think it is OK to boo you because you are a lying pig. The restaurant is context, not pretext
Wow, Scholz now with a very bold statement that won't survive a fact check:
"We will continue to support Ukraine with arms deliveries. Germany is doing this MORE INTENSIVELY THAN ALMOST ANYONE ELSE & will continue support as long as it's necessary to repel 🇷🇺 aggression."
(My 50 cent: Saying this in the Baltics, whose support for Ukraine in relation to GDP absolutely dwarfs Germany, sounds pretty arrogant. Also in total terms other countries have delivered more weapons; and heavy 🇩🇪 weapons still have to arrive to 🇺🇦)
Wow, Scholz now with a very bold statement that won't survive a fact check:
"We will continue to support Ukraine with arms deliveries. Germany is doing this MORE INTENSIVELY THAN ALMOST ANYONE ELSE & will continue support as long as it's necessary to repel 🇷🇺 aggression."
(My 50 cent: Saying this in the Baltics, whose support for Ukraine in relation to GDP absolutely dwarfs Germany, sounds pretty arrogant. Also in total terms other countries have delivered more weapons; and heavy 🇩🇪 weapons still have to arrive to 🇺🇦)
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
It won't save it.
Tories wont bother turning out. It will of course revert at the GE but for the by election there is no impetus to show up
Give a new local MP 2 years to make their mark. Throw in Johnson still clinging to power like a shipwrecked sailor on a burning plank and no resolution to the energy or cost of living issues and I would not be at all surprised to see the Lib Dems retaining the seat at the next GE.
And, of course, for the record I am not pumping them up as I don't support the Lib Dems at all. It just seems complacent to think it will revert just because it is supposedly a Tory seat.
In 1993 the Tories lost Christchurch to the LDs in a by election but won it back at the 1997 general election. In 2016 the Tories lost Richmond Park to the LDs at a by election but won it back at the 2017 general election. In summer 2019 the Tories lost Brecon and Radnor to the LDs in a by election but won it back in the December general election. It often happens
Yes often it happens. And often it doesn't. Picking out 3 examples on which to base a rule is not reasonable.
In 1993 the Tories lost Newbury to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE. In 1994 the Tories lost Eastleigh to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE. In 1995 the Tories lost Littleborough and Saddleworth to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE when it went Labour
There are plenty of examples going both ways so it is not, by any means, a done deal
Wow, Scholz now with a very bold statement that won't survive a fact check:
"We will continue to support Ukraine with arms deliveries. Germany is doing this MORE INTENSIVELY THAN ALMOST ANYONE ELSE & will continue support as long as it's necessary to repel 🇷🇺 aggression."
(My 50 cent: Saying this in the Baltics, whose support for Ukraine in relation to GDP absolutely dwarfs Germany, sounds pretty arrogant. Also in total terms other countries have delivered more weapons; and heavy 🇩🇪 weapons still have to arrive to 🇺🇦)
It's also bullshit in terms of refugees. Poland, Moldova, the Baltics, etc, have all taken way more refugees per capita. Poland has taken more in absolute terms
I can't work out if Scholz is simply inept, or actively mendacious and malign
He's a German politician. Its the latter with intent and the former by nature.
Its quite a complicated picture actually and, like everything else, distorted by Brexit. The first year reduced alcohol consumption from off licences overall by about 8%. Year 2, lockdown, meant it increased by 17.5%. Hard to draw a conclusion on that. What this latest study suggests is that even if overall consumption is reduced (probably a good thing) consumption by those most at risk is not because they will give alcohol a higher priority and sacrifice other consumption for it.
So is it working? Hard to say, but it is a long way from a silver bullet and other strategies are needed to supplement it with the more vulnerable groups.
Good Tory leaflet in Tiverton and Honiton. It is a Leave voting and traditional Tory area and hitting the LDs hard on their opposition to Brexit and tighter border controls and tougher prison sentences will go down well there. Also ensures the literature is not all one way from the Liberals.
The Conservative candidate is a well known local woman and I think has a chance of holding the seat which the Tories won with 60% of the vote in 2019. Most Labour voters will tactically vote LD anyway, to have a chance of holding on the Tories need to keep their core vote and get them out to vote
T&H is one of those strange constituencies that are only there to make the jigsaw puzzle fit*. Practically no-one from Honiton knows or cares what happens in Tiverton and vice-versa. They have different local media, different local councils and different politics (Tiverton is traditional Con/LD with the Greens trying to get traction, Honiton is Conservatives v East Devon Alliance with LD not much in evidence). Helen Hurford is from Honiton, she's a former teacher, got a shop in the town, long standing parish councillor and current Deputy Mayor of the town. It's fair to say that Helen is well known in Honiton but would be surprised if one in a hundred Tivertonians knew who she was before she was picked as the Tory candidate.
*The new boundaries restore a sensible Honiton constituency but at the expense of creating an abomination of a constituency in Tiverton & Minehead.
Not well written, as it only focusses on the alcoholics. The BBC report yesterday was more balanced. The policy was generally successful in reducing the problems caused by very cheap alcohol. It's the specific alcoholics that have not cut down.
Which is what you'd expect, that there is an extreme of the spectrum where the policy makes no difference because people would rather be homeless than not drink. Net effect across the spectrum is the test of success
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
It won't save it.
Tories wont bother turning out. It will of course revert at the GE but for the by election there is no impetus to show up
Give a new local MP 2 years to make their mark. Throw in Johnson still clinging to power like a shipwrecked sailor on a burning plank and no resolution to the energy or cost of living issues and I would not be at all surprised to see the Lib Dems retaining the seat at the next GE.
And, of course, for the record I am not pumping them up as I don't support the Lib Dems at all. It just seems complacent to think it will revert just because it is supposedly a Tory seat.
In 1993 the Tories lost Christchurch to the LDs in a by election but won it back at the 1997 general election. In 2016 the Tories lost Richmond Park to the LDs at a by election but won it back at the 2017 general election. In summer 2019 the Tories lost Brecon and Radnor to the LDs in a by election but won it back in the December general election. It often happens
Yes often it happens. And often it doesn't. Picking out 3 examples on which to base a rule is not reasonable.
In 1993 the Tories lost Newbury to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE. In 1994 the Tories lost Eastleigh to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE. In 1995 the Tories lost Littleborough and Saddleworth to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE when it went Labour
There are plenty of examples going both ways so it is not, by any means, a done deal
Two heavy by-election defeats coming: in both Red Wall and Blue Wall. If tory MPs didn't have the gumption to administer the coup de grace, the voters will.
A right-left sucker punch that would have made Muhammed Ali proud.
Wakefield is red wall ie a normally Labour Leave Northern or Midlands or Welsh seat that went Tory in 2019.
Tiverton and Honiton however isn't really blue wall ie a normally Tory Remain seat in the Home Counties which the LDs should see as a top target eg Chesham and Amersham. It should demographically as a Tory Leave seat be as strong Tory as Labour Remain seats are still strong Labour
I am really, really, really, looking forward to your confidence about Boris being shown to fail at the next General Election. You are in for a complete shock.
In the meantime, the idea that Tiverton & Honiton is not Blue Wall is an absolute joke. Seriously. Even in the 1997 New Labour landslide, it still returned a Conservative.
Tiverton & Honiton is to the Blue Wall as Liverpool Walton is to the Red Wall - a long way behind the front line.
It won't save it.
Tories wont bother turning out. It will of course revert at the GE but for the by election there is no impetus to show up
Give a new local MP 2 years to make their mark. Throw in Johnson still clinging to power like a shipwrecked sailor on a burning plank and no resolution to the energy or cost of living issues and I would not be at all surprised to see the Lib Dems retaining the seat at the next GE.
And, of course, for the record I am not pumping them up as I don't support the Lib Dems at all. It just seems complacent to think it will revert just because it is supposedly a Tory seat.
In 1993 the Tories lost Christchurch to the LDs in a by election but won it back at the 1997 general election. In 2016 the Tories lost Richmond Park to the LDs at a by election but won it back at the 2017 general election. In summer 2019 the Tories lost Brecon and Radnor to the LDs in a by election but won it back in the December general election. It often happens
Yes often it happens. And often it doesn't. Picking out 3 examples on which to base a rule is not reasonable.
In 1993 the Tories lost Newbury to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE. In 1994 the Tories lost Eastleigh to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE. In 1995 the Tories lost Littleborough and Saddleworth to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE when it went Labour
There are plenty of examples going both ways so it is not, by any means, a done deal
1997 was a particularly catastrophic general election for the Conservatives though and if things really are going to be that bad for them, I think they have more to worry about than just a couple of mid-term by-elections.
Comments
Adding the deeply misleading and absurd phrase "a year" to Ellwood's quite plausible (tho highly contentious) claim that we have suffered a permanent reduction of 4% in GDP , thanks to Brexit, turned Ellwood's remark into a statement that we are losing 4% a year, every year
This is fun!
Just because he has a personality, it doesn't mean there is a personality cult around him.
A great tabloid editor is reputed to have said "Who the hell reads the second paragraph?"
An even greater one said "Who the hell reads any paragraphs at all?"
GDP=income=flow per unit of time.
National wealth=wealth=stock at a point in time.
Losing £5k in one year is equivalent to GDP being x% lower in one year and then returning to its previous path from next year onwards. Losing £5k every year is equivalent to GDP being x% lower than it would have been this year and next year and every year henceforth. This latter case is the one that Ellwood and Roger were referring to.
As for the rest, if its not a personality cult dedicated to the advancement of the Big Dog then where are its principles? Its policies? Its big ideas? Its consistency?
They stand for literally nothing other than Boris Johnson. Which is what Berlusconi built for himself. And he knew about parties as well...
Which is a long winded, but childhood memory rich way of saying he is a c***
It is the economic equivalent of your £5k gee-gees every year, not a one-off £5k loss to gee-gees.
I personally think Ellwood's claim is unmitigated and hubristic bullshit, but what you think Roger means and what Ellwood actually meant are exactly the same thing.
So there should be no contest here. A quiet by-election where the local association nominates some local rustic with the right breeding who simply shakes hands with the local farmers and tradespeople and walks to a 60% vote share.
"A year" is read as "every year"
What Ellwood said originally is quite coherent, but arguable as a stat - "Brexit is reducing our GDP by 4%". When Roger misheard this and turned it into "because of Brexit we are losing 4% GDP a year" he made the statement incoherent, at best, and at worst plain wrong
GDP is a flow variable. If it is permanently 4% lower than it would have been otherwise then it is 4% lower *every year* versus that counterfactual.
Do you disagree with the statement above?
That is what Ellwood meant, he did mean we have reduced our GDP by 4% every year.
That does not mean GDP growth is falling by 4% every year, since he didn't say GDP growth, he said GDP and GDP != GDP growth. I think the stat is bullshit personally, but that is what Ellwood meant.
It is certainly not Labour Remain seats just as the Blue Wall is not Tory Leave seats
The arguement then evolved to the proposition that what we have suffered was a permanent dimunition in our terms of trade with the result that future growth would be somewhere between 0.2% and 0.4% a year less resulting in our GDP in 10 years time being something like 6% less. As that was a permanently reduced income we would be suffering that from that point forward each year. There are models which show that if you build that assumption in but so far there is no credible evidence that this is happening in the real world. The fact that the UK had higher growth than the EU with that last year is only consistent with that if you think that we would have exceeded the norm by an even bigger margin if we had stayed in. Possible but unlikely.
The years since we left have been far too extraordinary to reach a concluded view on this matter yet. It is possible that such an effect will become visible over time. But the traditional assumption of economic models, ceteris paribus, is frankly absurd because it assumes that no compensating action will be taken or, more accurately, does not allow any such action to count as a compensating figure.
To take a simple example good or bad economic management in this country will have a much larger effect over the period than any alleged diminution in the terms of trade. We should be focusing on that, as I have said already many times this morning.
His wife won't permit it.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1534139820519440387
I really couldn't care a less any more how they voted on the EU, and nor should the tories. I do care about the fact that the tories are losing their core supporters.
Put it another way. If you lose a leg in 2018, your ability to run around is permanently impaired by, say, 40%. Every year after 2018 that will be true. 40% impairment. Yet no one in this situation says "I break a leg every year"
I'm starting to see the buzz that @HYUFD gets
And the present central government is 100% Conservative, and people are suffering very badly.
For example, Devon receives an unfairly low level of funding for education from Central government, and Devon's Conservative MPs do nothing at all about it. Devon's Conservative County councillors try to pretend that the policy of the Conservative government in Westminster is nothing to do with them. They too need to be held to account. And that means criticism. Good. The Lib Dems are doing a good job.
Only you put it much better than me.
No wonder the Tories are useless at by elections
Also the idea that a candidates time is best spent canvassing 0.0001% of the electorate or even delivering (what) is bonkers. Get them seen out and about.
53% of 2016 Leave voters are still voting Conservative but only 15% of 2016 Remain voters are now voting Conservative
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/06/01/voting-intention-con-31-lab-39-24-25-may
Whether you approach this question from first principles using an economic model, compare the UK's recent performance to a counterfactual using comparable countries, or simply eyeball a chart of GDP, you get a similar answer. Of course there is a lot of noise from Covid and nothing in economics is ever certain, but the view that Brexit has had a measurable negative effect on the level of GDP is the mainstream one among people who are paid to look at these things.
This discussion is entirely separate from the one we are having with @Leon, which simply stems from his inability to admit that he got something wrong.
Disappointingly dull (apart from the scintillating GDP debate, of course).
(There's also of course a huge fallacy in using Leave/Remain as indicators because you can apply two dozen other characteristics of either 'side' that would be as equally valid ... but you know what? I really can't be bothered.)
Ah well. There will be another one along shortly
Confronted by a reporter with widespread criticism over 🇩🇪 weapon deliveries, Scholz doubles down:
"Germany is one of the most important military supporters of Ukraine. No one else is providing as much as Germany is doing. There are a few that also do a lot, like the U.S."
https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/status/1534122410282307586
It's what you thrive on here @Leon
And, of course, for the record I am not pumping them up as I don't support the Lib Dems at all. It just seems complacent to think it will revert just because it is supposedly a Tory seat.
Which kind of fits in with the common sense point that if introduced trade barriers result in less trade AND ALSO make your economy less interesting to invest in, you will end up being permanently poorer.
I'm not counting as models random people on the internet calling bullshit because none of this fits in with their priors .
Keep sending them out
I'm just saying that I can now see the obscure pleasure in wrestling over a pointless bone like a maddened terrier
Let's say we're in an environment where the medium term GDP growth is 2% pa - over 10 years GDP will grow from 100 to 122.
Now if we apply a one off 4% hit at the start, we're starting from 96 and if the growth rate is the same, GDP ends up at 117 after 10 years, still 4% lower.
That being said, if the one off 4% hit doesn't affect the absolute GDP growth, then it still goes up by 22, just from a lower base, and ends the 10 years at 118, which is now only 3% lower so in time the effect erodes. I have no idea if this concept is economically sound though!
EDIT who is also Boris's bestie.
Look at the local elections last month, the Tories lost Remain voting Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, West Oxfordshire and Tunbridge Wells.
However the Tories gained seats in Leave voting Newcastle under Lyme and Harlow and held Walsall and Dudley
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/07/minimum-alcohol-pricing-causes-poorest-cut-back-food-scotland
But you're right that HY seems to thrive upon it.
If Brexit had permanently boosted our productive capacity by 4%, would you say "Brexit means we gain 4% GDP a year"?
Well, would you?
It originally referred to the continuous line of Labour constituencies roughly straddling the M62. So. A specific geographical entity.
As such it had some utility as a shorthand.
The trouble now is it is used by folk of all stripes to refer to their own cherry picked definition of seats to prove whichever political point they are trying to make at the time.
It's as good as useless if no one can agree what it is.
As far as I am aware (no doubt someone can correct this on something odd) flows must have a unit of time associated with them, many of these are used by default - eg miles per hour etc, by convention GDP is measured by years, so adding "a year" to a flow measured in years is redundant and doesn't change its meaning whatsoever.
LDs will get nowhere near T and H at a GE imo. Nor North Shropshire. Maybe Chesham but i doubt it.
This is not 1997 and until polling shows us headed there then i cant see these safe seats doing anything but return to type... further down the tree however.....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
aHEM
Nah, fuck it
ahahahahahahHAHAHAHAAAURGHSPqw'lirpo1
HAH
If you don't think that Brexit will have a permanent effect on GDP growth why is this going to change from the arithmetical model? I would assume that is because you recognise that over time compensatory steps will be taken that will offset it. My point is that a government that was paying attention would be making such compensatory steps now. We saw a little bit of this in Truss's new trade deals but clearly they were not enough on their own and in most cases simply gave us back a bit of what had been lost.
But by improving our economic performance domestically we can do better. The government and the opposition are not showing any signs of focusing on this, which is unfortunate. It is, ultimately, what actually matters.
It may have been that on one occasion the FD failed, and the pilot had to wing it on raw data - which must have been scary as f***, even with all the training.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit-votes-by-constituency/
(Some are estimates, because the votes were reported by local council area in many cases.)
In 2016, there were 408 constituencies voting leave, one tie (to 1 decimal place), 241 voting remain.
The median leave figure was about 54% leave, so you would have needed about a 4% swing on average to get to a bare majority of constituencies voting remain.
In that, Germany is streets ahead of anyone else.
I can't help but think the original statement was that he wanted to change the NHS as it was currently a Blockbuster system in an age of Netflix. It's the only way it makes sense. Duplication of services like thousands of VHS tapes sitting identically in every store, rather than people accessing bespoke care when they wanted it or some such twaddle.
So Tobias Ellwood should have said "Brexit means we lose 4% of GDP each year". And that would be, like, totally true, right? Completely accurate and not at all misleading?
I mean, no one, reading that, would think JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THE BREXIT ECONOMY IS GOING TO SHRINK 4% EVERY YEAR
No. Instead, everyone would shrug and say "that's fine, it's a concept of flow"
Wow, Scholz now with a very bold statement that won't survive a fact check:
"We will continue to support Ukraine with arms deliveries. Germany is doing this MORE INTENSIVELY THAN ALMOST ANYONE ELSE & will continue support as long as it's necessary to repel 🇷🇺 aggression."
(My 50 cent: Saying this in the Baltics, whose support for Ukraine in relation to GDP absolutely dwarfs Germany, sounds pretty arrogant. Also in total terms other countries have delivered more weapons; and heavy 🇩🇪 weapons still have to arrive to 🇺🇦)
ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-aga…
https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/status/1534121099604029440
That doesn't mean it that the first litre I buy is 50p more expensive, then the rest return to the same price, it means every litre is 50p more expensive.
If GDP takes a 4% hit then that means every year's GDP is 4% lower unless something changes that in the future, not just this years, just as every litre is 50p more expensive not just the first one.
If that doesn't explain it to you Leon, I don't know what else can. Have fun everybody.
https://www.pointvista.com/WW2GliderPilots/shuttlepilots.htm
I can't work out if Scholz is simply inept, or actively mendacious and malign
The Ukranians haven’t seen any German weapons, that’s all that matters in the middle of an actual war.
In 1993 the Tories lost Newbury to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE.
In 1994 the Tories lost Eastleigh to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE.
In 1995 the Tories lost Littleborough and Saddleworth to the Lib Dems and failed to win it back at the next GE when it went Labour
There are plenty of examples going both ways so it is not, by any means, a done deal
So is it working? Hard to say, but it is a long way from a silver bullet and other strategies are needed to supplement it with the more vulnerable groups.
*The new boundaries restore a sensible Honiton constituency but at the expense of creating an abomination of a constituency in Tiverton & Minehead.