Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

This reminds me of some Corbynites – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 23 in General
This reminds me of some Corbynites – politicalbetting.com

Trump-endorsed GOP Ohio Senate candidate Bernie Moreno says moderate Republicans shouldn't vote for him: They have a choice on the other side pic.twitter.com/WWFrmXwve6

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,840
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,344
    edited March 23
    3rd.

    Good comment from OGH-Minor. *

    * We need a new nickname :smile: .
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,290
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    You were right to bring this over from the previous thread, it's an excellent post, and all the better for being stated in a dispassionate way, which I certainly wouldn't have done.

    Your point about domestic savings rates being too low for a successful balance of trade is one that you have made often, and I am not sure I understand it fully. Doesn't home ownership function as a savings account? You put pots of money in every month and it stores your money without you being able to access it. I would have thought (as is the more conventional mindset) that we are just consuming a lot of foreign things rather than British ones. A look at the list of how many big brands are British-owned (it ain't a long one) seems to be evidence of this, but perhaps that's coincidental?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081
    MattW said:

    3rd.

    Good comment from OGH-Minor. *

    * We need a new nickname :smile: .

    OGTH? Our Genial Tech Host?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,213
    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081
    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 204

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    You were right to bring this over from the previous thread, it's an excellent post, and all the better for being stated in a dispassionate way, which I certainly wouldn't have done.

    Your point about domestic savings rates being too low for a successful balance of trade is one that you have made often, and I am not sure I understand it fully. Doesn't home ownership function as a savings account? You put pots of money in every month and it stores your money without you being able to access it. I would have thought (as is the more conventional mindset) that we are just consuming a lot of foreign things rather than British ones. A look at the list of how many big brands are British-owned (it ain't a long one) seems to be evidence of this, but perhaps that's coincidental?
    Your assessment that the impact of the eu is neglible either way is factually wrong.
  • FF43 said:

    WillG said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Tories now averaging 22.6% in the last 10* polls. At the start of the year they were averaging 25.3%. Labour now 44.6%, was 43.9%.

    (* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election )

    This stringing things out until the last possible moment isn't working out too well for Con is it?
    The Tories have been badly hit by the general European slowdown. The public haven't noticed how we have grown faster than the EU since we Brexited. We are still far too dependent on Europe.
    Indeed. We're held back by the EU. Even so we managed to grow our nominal GDP by an amazing 15% since 2016 while the EU only managed a miserable 21% growth.
    Going with GDP per capita figures and taking 2010 as a reasonable baseline (when the Tories were elected, before Brexit became an issue) the data is:

    UK +16%
    EU +9%

    Unless you think the Brexit campaign and referendum pushed the UK up in 2016 which is perhaps why you want that as the baseline?
    The UK v EU comparison has limitations. Bulgaria and the UK were both in the EU, but they are undoubtedly different economies, so why compare them? What you want is to compare the UK in the EU with the UK out of the EU. You could do a before/after Brexit comparison, but there are obvious confounds. You want to compare the UK now with the counterfactual UK now had we stayed, which we can’t do.

    It would be better to, at least, compare the UK over the period in question with more similar EU states. The Brexit vote or when Brexit actually happened seem more sensible time points to look at. One could try developing a full regression model, or maybe a full time series model — ARIMA, even GARCH — and look at Brexit in that.
    2016 is not a reasonable baseline as Brexit considerably affected the data already in 2016.

    If you want a long term comparison it needs to be from before Brexit affected the data, which is why 2010 is a reasonable starting point.
    Why 2010, when Brexiting seemed unlikely? 2015 when a government was elected with a pledge to hold a referendum might make sense.
    Precisely because Brexit seemed unlikely then.

    The baseline for a change is the delta between when the change seemed unlikely to when the change has happened.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,195
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    3rd.

    Good comment from OGH-Minor. *

    * We need a new nickname :smile: .

    OGTH? Our Genial Tech Host?
    Our Jeannie makes toast?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,913
    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Your estimate of revenue is wildly high:

    Investors in Trump Media & Technology Group are buying shares in a fledgling social media business that booked $3.3 million in revenue for the first nine months of 2023, according to a regulatory filing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,913
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Your estimate of revenue is wildly high:

    Investors in Trump Media & Technology Group are buying shares in a fledgling social media business that booked $3.3 million in revenue for the first nine months of 2023, according to a regulatory filing.
    And...

    Trump Media is hemorrhaging money, with its losses mounting to $49 million during that same period last year.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,593
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    3rd.

    Good comment from OGH-Minor. *

    * We need a new nickname :smile: .

    OGTH? Our Genial Tech Host?
    OGH 2: OGH Harder.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,564
    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    I guess his public statements are not under oath or anything, but given he tried to say he needed more time to arrange a bond last time, when turns out he'd reached agreement with someone to post it, it surely will be in the back of the mind.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,564
    edited March 23
    On topic, i get their politics is even more bitter than ours, and sadly that appears to be what most want, but Arizona seems to be the purest example of it with people like Lake, and its spreading wider with the likes of Moreno. With people who seem to despise anyone not already on board, an utter inability to accept losing is a possibility without cheating, and getting on TV the only concern, telling moderates not to vote for you is just part of the deal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,564
    Not much liquidity in many markets outside major events closer to the moment i assume. Even with it being mostly for sake of people being able to report on what odds or markets are for event X, it feels very peripheral for companies.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,564
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Your estimate of revenue is wildly high:

    Investors in Trump Media & Technology Group are buying shares in a fledgling social media business that booked $3.3 million in revenue for the first nine months of 2023, according to a regulatory filing.
    And...

    Trump Media is hemorrhaging money, with its losses mounting to $49 million during that same period last year.
    If people can see all that it seems insane he could gain billions even on paper over it, and realise some big gains through this process. Does the SPAC process essentially make that detail irrelevant at this stage, and the cake is already baked, as it were?
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,913

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    You were right to bring this over from the previous thread, it's an excellent post, and all the better for being stated in a dispassionate way, which I certainly wouldn't have done.

    Your point about domestic savings rates being too low for a successful balance of trade is one that you have made often, and I am not sure I understand it fully. Doesn't home ownership function as a savings account? You put pots of money in every month and it stores your money without you being able to access it. I would have thought (as is the more conventional mindset) that we are just consuming a lot of foreign things rather than British ones. A look at the list of how many big brands are British-owned (it ain't a long one) seems to be evidence of this, but perhaps that's coincidental?
    I'm afraid I've just landed in Mexico, and your post deserves a proper response.

    Don't let me forget.
  • kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Your estimate of revenue is wildly high:

    Investors in Trump Media & Technology Group are buying shares in a fledgling social media business that booked $3.3 million in revenue for the first nine months of 2023, according to a regulatory filing.
    And...

    Trump Media is hemorrhaging money, with its losses mounting to $49 million during that same period last year.
    If people can see all that it seems insane he could gain billions even on paper over it, and realise some big gains through this process. Does the SPAC process essentially make that detail irrelevant at this stage, and the cake is already baked, as it were?
    It's basically a pyramid scheme at this point.

    Those at the top of the pyramid make money. Those below, not so much.

    As long as there's enough mugs, pyramid schemes can last long enough to make those at the top a lot of money.

    Bitcoin has been doing this for many years now despite the lack of any material revenue and the extreme costs and losses it makes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Your estimate of revenue is wildly high:

    Investors in Trump Media & Technology Group are buying shares in a fledgling social media business that booked $3.3 million in revenue for the first nine months of 2023, according to a regulatory filing.
    And...

    Trump Media is hemorrhaging money, with its losses mounting to $49 million during that same period last year.
    Thanks. So either the figures I saw were wrong, or I got them the wrong way round.

    But actually, that makes @kamski 's question even more pertinent.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,840

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    There are always hiding spaces. Look at the way the EHCR is being 'blamed' for us not being able to deal with immigration.

    It's always someone else's fault, and unless we totally disconnect from the world, there will always be someone else to blame.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,213
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Your estimate of revenue is wildly high:

    Investors in Trump Media & Technology Group are buying shares in a fledgling social media business that booked $3.3 million in revenue for the first nine months of 2023, according to a regulatory filing.
    And...

    Trump Media is hemorrhaging money, with its losses mounting to $49 million during that same period last year.
    I just read an estimate of 800,000 monthly users, so the valuation is way too high and it's a bubble waiting to burst , or some people have an expectation that if Trump becomes president Truth Social will somehow become worth a hell of a lot
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081
    edited March 23
    Anyway, on topic:

    I do hope the approx 40% of Republicans who seem to have misgivings about their party being taken over by a bunch of corrupt, incompetent and not very intelligent fascists WHO USE THE CAPS KEY FAR TOO MUCH agree with him.

    A Democrat two thirds majority in the House and Senate along with control of the Presidency would have its drawbacks but it would at least allow for some rather overdue changes.
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    There are always hiding spaces. Look at the way the EHCR is being 'blamed' for us not being able to deal with immigration.

    It's always someone else's fault, and unless we totally disconnect from the world, there will always be someone else to blame.
    Looking at the opinion polls it doesn't look like the public is buying the ECHR argument though, does it?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489

    FF43 said:

    WillG said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Tories now averaging 22.6% in the last 10* polls. At the start of the year they were averaging 25.3%. Labour now 44.6%, was 43.9%.

    (* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election )

    This stringing things out until the last possible moment isn't working out too well for Con is it?
    The Tories have been badly hit by the general European slowdown. The public haven't noticed how we have grown faster than the EU since we Brexited. We are still far too dependent on Europe.
    Indeed. We're held back by the EU. Even so we managed to grow our nominal GDP by an amazing 15% since 2016 while the EU only managed a miserable 21% growth.
    Going with GDP per capita figures and taking 2010 as a reasonable baseline (when the Tories were elected, before Brexit became an issue) the data is:

    UK +16%
    EU +9%

    Unless you think the Brexit campaign and referendum pushed the UK up in 2016 which is perhaps why you want that as the baseline?
    The UK v EU comparison has limitations. Bulgaria and the UK were both in the EU, but they are undoubtedly different economies, so why compare them? What you want is to compare the UK in the EU with the UK out of the EU. You could do a before/after Brexit comparison, but there are obvious confounds. You want to compare the UK now with the counterfactual UK now had we stayed, which we can’t do.

    It would be better to, at least, compare the UK over the period in question with more similar EU states. The Brexit vote or when Brexit actually happened seem more sensible time points to look at. One could try developing a full regression model, or maybe a full time series model — ARIMA, even GARCH — and look at Brexit in that.
    2016 is not a reasonable baseline as Brexit considerably affected the data already in 2016.

    If you want a long term comparison it needs to be from before Brexit affected the data, which is why 2010 is a reasonable starting point.
    Why 2010, when Brexiting seemed unlikely? 2015 when a government was elected with a pledge to hold a referendum might make sense.
    Precisely because Brexit seemed unlikely then.

    The baseline for a change is the delta between when the change seemed unlikely to when the change has happened.
    That makes no sense. Brexit seemed unlikely in 1989, so should that be the baseline? No.

    It wasn’t the possibility of Brexit that impacted free trade. It was Brexit.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    I question whether small and nimble is best for countries. Historically, large empires did best economically. In a modern world, large international companies can run rings around small and nimble countries. You need large blocs to control them, as you also need large blocs to resist the negative influences of Russia and China.

    One can be small and nimble within the EU, while benefiting from a large free trade zone and stability.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,960
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: watched qualifying, but it'll be a long while before the markets are there so I'll likely post the pre-race waffle in the afternoon. If I remember...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081
    Incidentally, @Tse, there's a typo in the first sentence.

    You've put an 'l' instead of an 'n' so it reads 'a cult takes over.'
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489
    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, on topic:

    I do hope the approx 40% of Republicans who seem to have misgivings about their party being taken over by a bunch of corrupt, incompetent and not very intelligent fascists WHO USE THE CAPS KEY FAR TOO MUCH agree with him.

    A Democrat two thirds majority in the House and Senate along with control of the Presidency would have its drawbacks but it would at least allow for some rather overdue changes.

    Watching the Cultural Revolution scenes in the first episode of 3 Body Problem, I was reminded of the MAGA movement. Reality is irrelevant for them; the cult is all that matters.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081

    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, on topic:

    I do hope the approx 40% of Republicans who seem to have misgivings about their party being taken over by a bunch of corrupt, incompetent and not very intelligent fascists WHO USE THE CAPS KEY FAR TOO MUCH agree with him.

    A Democrat two thirds majority in the House and Senate along with control of the Presidency would have its drawbacks but it would at least allow for some rather overdue changes.

    Watching the Cultural Revolution scenes in the first episode of 3 Body Problem, I was reminded of the MAGA movement. Reality is irrelevant for them; the cult is all that matters.
    Another typo...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,098
    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,180
    edited March 23
    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,334

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    There are always hiding spaces. Look at the way the EHCR is being 'blamed' for us not being able to deal with immigration.

    It's always someone else's fault, and unless we totally disconnect from the world, there will always be someone else to blame.
    And that's where the doctrine of pure national sovereignty runs into a brick wall.

    An individual or a nation can always do what it likes as long as it doesn't care about the response of other people or nations.

    But if that response does matter, then there are constraints. That might be "stiff me once and I won't trust you again", or "behave too badly and I won't be your ally". But not even an island is a complete island.

    There are also, bluntly, the constraints of physics, chemistry and arithmetic. The will of the people can be to cut taxes and increase public spending and that can be popular and seem to work for a decade or two until it doesn't...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,476
    edited March 23
    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.
    Certainly we have little evidence of our political class being quick and nimble or being willing to tackle serious issues! Both prospective governments are in complete denial about the scale of the problems facing the country, not least because they shortly have to win approval from an electorate that is also in denial.

    The problems of our time: ageing demographics, climate change, mass migration, globalisation of trade, off-shoring of profits to avoid tax, Woke AI killer robots controlled by aliens etc are all issues that need international co-operation and solutions. This particularly is needed between the like-minded mature economies and liberal democracies that are our neighbours on this continent.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,327
    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    And inevitable, because as I say - it itself is an example of grasping at straws to blame the EU for our own political failure.

    The idea politicians falsely blaming the EU for things they were getting wrong, failing to address, or just wouldn't for fear of vested interests would suddenly say 'fair cop' when it was gone rather than find new scapegoats to exculpate themselves, goes against everything we know of human nature.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,149
    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    I gave up on the political EU. A massive error in hindsight but only one of several missteps I made at that time. But the EU is not the EEA is not any of the other things the government have chosen to bin off following a referendum which didn’t ask about them.

    Surely the whole point in sovereignty was that we make our own decisions? We all accept we have done so. Now consider the decisions we have made. A few examples of the UK being utterly incompetent and idiotic:

    Ditching CE for UKCA at enormous cost to business and industry. But doing so in such an incompetent manner that we go back to CE.
    Imposing what Brexit Opportunities Minister Rees-Mogg described as “an act of national self-harm”. Comedy as we insist the EEA treat us as a 3rd country without knowing what that means, then objecting to them imposing our deal which we required them to be treaty-bound to impose, now we ramp up requirements on things like meat imports whilst still not actually having the facilities or staff or computer system or inclination to actually bother ourselves.

    If this is sovereignty then you have to question why we bothered. We are sovereign. And get ordered around by the EU countries imposing on us our trade-restricting deal we can’t impose on them cos incompetent.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,833
    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,334
    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    And with that, we're back on topic. The "good idea, done badly, not gone far enough" is the sort of thing that devotees of St Jeremy The Martyr say as well.

    The will of the people is pretty clearly that this isn't going well and is probably a mistake. There's not much enthusiasm for any alternative but the status quo is seen as rubbish. The only useful questions are what the British state does with that information and when?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081

    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    And with that, we're back on topic. The "good idea, done badly, not gone far enough" is the sort of thing that devotees of St Jeremy The Martyr say as well.

    The will of the people is pretty clearly that this isn't going well and is probably a mistake. There's not much enthusiasm for any alternative but the status quo is seen as rubbish. The only useful questions are what the British state does with that information and when?
    The one thing we can be reasonably sure of is that they will make a complete mess of whatever they attempt.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,180

    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    And with that, we're back on topic. The "good idea, done badly, not gone far enough" is the sort of thing that devotees of St Jeremy The Martyr say as well.

    The will of the people is pretty clearly that this isn't going well and is probably a mistake. There's not much enthusiasm for any alternative but the status quo is seen as rubbish. The only useful questions are what the British state does with that information and when?
    It's now more than ever that we are expected to embrace our national motto: mustn't grumble.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,476
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    100-200? Not nearly enough!

    But as I recall we had General Elections when we were in the EU. We always had democracy and could hold our politicians to account.

    The problem is not that politicians promise castles on clouds, its that the voters demand them. We no longer have politicians who are willing to lead and persuade, just a bunch of shallow Populists spouting incoherent drivel to the hard of thinking.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,825
    To summarize, Brexit is a bad idea, done badly, by fools and idiots.

    Apart from that...
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,149
    Scott_xP said:

    To summarize, Brexit is a bad idea, done badly, by fools and idiots.

    Apart from that...

    Problem with statements like that is that you can’t define “Brexit”.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,476
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    And with that, we're back on topic. The "good idea, done badly, not gone far enough" is the sort of thing that devotees of St Jeremy The Martyr say as well.

    The will of the people is pretty clearly that this isn't going well and is probably a mistake. There's not much enthusiasm for any alternative but the status quo is seen as rubbish. The only useful questions are what the British state does with that information and when?
    It's now more than ever that we are expected to embrace our national motto: mustn't grumble.
    If there is one thing Britons can unite around it is having a good moan. "Mustn't grumble" is superb British irony considering that is what we do most.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    Where do you get your numbers from?

    It is now two to one on that the cull will exceed 200.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally, @Tse, there's a typo in the first sentence.

    You've put an 'l' instead of an 'n' so it reads 'a cult takes over.'

    I noticed that error too.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019
    On the Senate, I thought that the GOP were almost guaranteed to gain control because two of the DEM seats up for election this time are Montana and West Virginia.

    In all the Democrats hold eight Senate seats in this cycle where the PVI favours the Republicans.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    I have been working very closely on advocacy around what is a pretty obscure piece of EU legislation (a regulation on the licensing of standard essential patents) for the last few months. I have worked on Brussels-related issues before, but this one has really shown just how dysfunctional the EU decision making process is and how prone it can be to deep pocket lobbying capture. Legislation that will run entirely counter to EU interests - technology, defence and economic - is in the process of being enacted at the behest of very wealthy Silicon Valley companies (Apple, basically) that do not like to pay royalties to use the connectivity inventions that are pivotal to their products. The UK, on the other hand, has taken an entirely different view and will not be making any changes to its own regime. This is very clearly a Brexit victory. But it's not one you are going to read about because it is not a sexy subject. My guess is that there are similar things happening in many other areas too.

    I think it's only fair for me to say this as I am someone who has been very clear that the Brexit we chose to pursue was insane. I still hold that view but I am less persuaded than I was that Brexit in and of itself was a bad idea. My experience tells me there probably was a way to make it a success. But that collapsed as an option as soon as the government decided to go for a maximalist approach to sovereignty. It is going to take many years for us to recover from that blinkered act of self-harm.

    All that said, I suppose there is also the argument that the UK inside the EU could have prevented the legislation that I am talking about - and others like it. What is also clear from the work I am doing is that the opposition of just one big population EU member state is likely to scupper most initiatives.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    Where do you get your numbers from?

    It is now two to one on that the cull will exceed 200.
    Sorry if that sounded a bit snotty, Sandpit, but I speak with considerable smugness in my voice.

    In Benpointer's excellent competition, I predicted a Labour Majority of 254, which was 54 more than any other entry. I wondered at the time if I had overdone it a bit, but if I could resubmit I would make it more like 452.

    As so many on here remarked, Sunak missed his last best chance when he passed over the May election option. It can surely only get worse for him now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081
    edited March 23

    On the Senate, I thought that the GOP were almost guaranteed to gain control because two of the DEM seats up for election this time are Montana and West Virginia.

    In all the Democrats hold eight Senate seats in this cycle where the PVI favours the Republicans.

    If they don't, they've had a truly shocking night.

    But they're dealing with their Presidential candidate being a criminal, their funds being drained to pay his legal bills, their down ticket candidates having been selected for their desire to destroy American democracy rather than any merits of their own, and all of this being plastered across every media outlet. Plus, all of their major policies are deeply controversial and not liked by swing voters.

    We saw in 2022 that these combinations led to the Republicans losing what should have been unloseable races. Georgia and Nevada both spring to mind.

    I said two months ago that there might be value in the Dems to hold the senate. I think there still is. Even though there should not be.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    Where do you get your numbers from?

    It is now two to one on that the cull will exceed 200.
    Sorry if that sounded a bit snotty, Sandpit, but I speak with considerable smugness in my voice.

    In Benpointer's excellent competition, I predicted a Labour Majority of 254, which was 54 more than any other entry. I wondered at the time if I had overdone it a bit, but if I could resubmit I would make it more like 452.

    As so many on here remarked, Sunak missed his last best chance when he passed over the May election option. It can surely only get worse for him now.
    Incidentally, thinking of predictions, at some point you owe me lunch after the Supreme Court decided to side with traitors rather than the Constitution. But it may have to wait a bit I'm afraid as I'm rather busy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
    Rationality and Donald Trump's supporters have been strangers for quite some time now.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    Where do you get your numbers from?

    It is now two to one on that the cull will exceed 200.
    Sorry if that sounded a bit snotty, Sandpit, but I speak with considerable smugness in my voice.

    In Benpointer's excellent competition, I predicted a Labour Majority of 254, which was 54 more than any other entry. I wondered at the time if I had overdone it a bit, but if I could resubmit I would make it more like 452.

    As so many on here remarked, Sunak missed his last best chance when he passed over the May election option. It can surely only get worse for him now.
    Incidentally, thinking of predictions, at some point you owe me lunch after the Supreme Court decided to side with traitors rather than the Constitution. But it may have to wait a bit I'm afraid as I'm rather busy.
    You are very welcome, Y. Please remind me as and when you wish to collect.

    I owe SeanF too, but he hasn't been posting lately. If someone could give him a nudge?

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    The real cost of Brexit (as I've regularly noted) was that it was a decade long distraction from government doing anything about the economy.
    That continues.

    It probably also cost us at least one EV factory (Tesla), and perhaps done battery plants, too.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    Where do you get your numbers from?

    It is now two to one on that the cull will exceed 200.
    Sorry if that sounded a bit snotty, Sandpit, but I speak with considerable smugness in my voice.

    In Benpointer's excellent competition, I predicted a Labour Majority of 254, which was 54 more than any other entry. I wondered at the time if I had overdone it a bit, but if I could resubmit I would make it more like 452.

    As so many on here remarked, Sunak missed his last best chance when he passed over the May election option. It can surely only get worse for him now.
    Don't get too smug Peter, the question was predict the UK General Election outcome: winning party + majority (±10%).

    So if the Labour majority is over 280, strictly speaking it's null points for you too. (Though the kudos would be immense of course and Chief Judge TSE might be inclined to award a bonus point maybe?)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    Morning! Can I query your point about how tariffs and paperwork are essentially as they were before? You know that this is catastrophically not true, surely?

    One thing the UK became very good at was logistics, and as the English-speaking bit of Europe that meant we were trade central. The active word being were.

    Paperwork - even where there still are zero tariffs - is massive as you have to categorise everything and prove it. As opposed to before where there was no paperwork. And trade central? Less so. Tariffs absolutely exist if you import something to/from the EU and then to/from the EU. Which is why our bridgehead role has now gone to Rotterdam and why Ireland bypasses us completely.

    The solution for most companies who import and export has been to utterly remake their supply chain. Either stop importing or exporting because no longer commercially viable. Or register in the UK/EU depending on the predominant flow and move operations.

    “Very mildly worse” indeed. Easy to say from America.
    Robert is in services rather than goods.
    I think that's perhaps the reason for your different perceptions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
    Rationality and Donald Trump's supporters have been strangers for quite some time now.
    The big money in the deal comes from a TikTok investor Trump backer.
    It's essentially a way of channelling a lot of money to Trump at arms length - and will suck in a lot of suckers as a bonus.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,876

    I have been working very closely on advocacy around what is a pretty obscure piece of EU legislation (a regulation on the licensing of standard essential patents) for the last few months. I have worked on Brussels-related issues before, but this one has really shown just how dysfunctional the EU decision making process is and how prone it can be to deep pocket lobbying capture. Legislation that will run entirely counter to EU interests - technology, defence and economic - is in the process of being enacted at the behest of very wealthy Silicon Valley companies (Apple, basically) that do not like to pay royalties to use the connectivity inventions that are pivotal to their products. The UK, on the other hand, has taken an entirely different view and will not be making any changes to its own regime. This is very clearly a Brexit victory. But it's not one you are going to read about because it is not a sexy subject. My guess is that there are similar things happening in many other areas too.

    I think it's only fair for me to say this as I am someone who has been very clear that the Brexit we chose to pursue was insane. I still hold that view but I am less persuaded than I was that Brexit in and of itself was a bad idea. My experience tells me there probably was a way to make it a success. But that collapsed as an option as soon as the government decided to go for a maximalist approach to sovereignty. It is going to take many years for us to recover from that blinkered act of self-harm.

    That’s handily synchronised with Sir Keir’s ‘journey’ from rubbishing everything to do with Brexit and demanding another vote, to finding some positives now he is likely to be in charge

    But now you’ve found a way to support a Labour government doing Brexity things instead of finding fault with anything a rival came up with.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,165
    A
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
    1) buy into it and you are buying influence with future President Trump.
    2) it may be the future of alt-right social media in the US. A group of people who have demonstrated they will buy anything and have quite a bit of money to do it with. That’s an interesting customer list….
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Nice bit of irony.

    Graphic novel about dictator's book bans in 1980s Korea faces restrictions in 2020s America
    ..Set in 1983, three years after the Gwangju Massacre, the events of the story seem like an ugly, distant past, but "Banned Book Club" is one of many titles facing a flood of requests in the present day to be banned from a handful of libraries and schools across the U.S.

    "Korean history is being banned in America!" Estrada warned in a summary of the situation.

    He pointed out that it's not just this title that has faced these bans. "Grass," a story about World War II sex slavery by Keum Suk Gendry-Kim, faced a ban in a school district in Missouri. "The Color of Earth," a coming-of-age story set in a small Korean village in the late 1800s by Dong Hwa Kim, was banned in a school district in Florida...

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537
    isam said:

    I have been working very closely on advocacy around what is a pretty obscure piece of EU legislation (a regulation on the licensing of standard essential patents) for the last few months. I have worked on Brussels-related issues before, but this one has really shown just how dysfunctional the EU decision making process is and how prone it can be to deep pocket lobbying capture. Legislation that will run entirely counter to EU interests - technology, defence and economic - is in the process of being enacted at the behest of very wealthy Silicon Valley companies (Apple, basically) that do not like to pay royalties to use the connectivity inventions that are pivotal to their products. The UK, on the other hand, has taken an entirely different view and will not be making any changes to its own regime. This is very clearly a Brexit victory. But it's not one you are going to read about because it is not a sexy subject. My guess is that there are similar things happening in many other areas too.

    I think it's only fair for me to say this as I am someone who has been very clear that the Brexit we chose to pursue was insane. I still hold that view but I am less persuaded than I was that Brexit in and of itself was a bad idea. My experience tells me there probably was a way to make it a success. But that collapsed as an option as soon as the government decided to go for a maximalist approach to sovereignty. It is going to take many years for us to recover from that blinkered act of self-harm.

    That’s handily synchronised with Sir Keir’s ‘journey’ from rubbishing everything to do with Brexit and demanding another vote, to finding some positives now he is likely to be in charge

    But now you’ve found a way to support a Labour government doing Brexity things instead of finding fault with anything a rival came up with.

    ...whereas you're still desperately trying to find any reason at all to support the Tories?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234

    A

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
    1) buy into it and you are buying influence with future President Trump.
    2) it may be the future of alt-right social media in the US. A group of people who have demonstrated they will buy anything and have quite a bit of money to do it with. That’s an interesting customer list….
    I'll stick with my worthless assessment. 😉
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,239
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    And with that, we're back on topic. The "good idea, done badly, not gone far enough" is the sort of thing that devotees of St Jeremy The Martyr say as well.

    The will of the people is pretty clearly that this isn't going well and is probably a mistake. There's not much enthusiasm for any alternative but the status quo is seen as rubbish. The only useful questions are what the British state does with that information and when?
    It's now more than ever that we are expected to embrace our national motto: mustn't grumble.
    If there is one thing Britons can unite around it is having a good moan. "Mustn't grumble" is superb British irony considering that is what we do most.
    There being a lot more than usual to grumble about right now

    Good morning
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,239
    edited March 23
    I missed this prediction competition for the GE as I was off air for a long time whilst travelling. Presumably the comp is still open until the day itself? @Benpointer

    You all know my views on this, resolutely stated over the past couple of years. So I’ll punt for the number of Cons MPs to be 80-130 after the GE, which equates to I don’t know what in terms of a Labour majority. I guess around 250?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    So the Senate passed the funding deal - which is essentially the same as the McCarthy/Biden deal from last summer.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/22/senate-tees-up-final-passage-vote-for-1-2t-funding-package-00148695

    The GOP House has spent best part of a year in futile grandstanding.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    Where do you get your numbers from?

    It is now two to one on that the cull will exceed 200.
    Sorry if that sounded a bit snotty, Sandpit, but I speak with considerable smugness in my voice.

    In Benpointer's excellent competition, I predicted a Labour Majority of 254, which was 54 more than any other entry. I wondered at the time if I had overdone it a bit, but if I could resubmit I would make it more like 452.

    As so many on here remarked, Sunak missed his last best chance when he passed over the May election option. It can surely only get worse for him now.
    Don't get too smug Peter, the question was predict the UK General Election outcome: winning party + majority (±10%).

    So if the Labour majority is over 280, strictly speaking it's null points for you too. (Though the kudos would be immense of course and Chief Judge TSE might be inclined to award a bonus point maybe?)
    Kudos suits me just fine, Ben. It's a damn sight more than I usually get.

    I promise to be insufferable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081
    Nigelb said:

    So the Senate passed the funding deal - which is essentially the same as the McCarthy/Biden deal from last summer.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/22/senate-tees-up-final-passage-vote-for-1-2t-funding-package-00148695

    The GOP House has spent best part of a year in futile grandstanding.

    Could have been worse. Could have been successful grandstanding.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    isam said:

    I have been working very closely on advocacy around what is a pretty obscure piece of EU legislation (a regulation on the licensing of standard essential patents) for the last few months. I have worked on Brussels-related issues before, but this one has really shown just how dysfunctional the EU decision making process is and how prone it can be to deep pocket lobbying capture. Legislation that will run entirely counter to EU interests - technology, defence and economic - is in the process of being enacted at the behest of very wealthy Silicon Valley companies (Apple, basically) that do not like to pay royalties to use the connectivity inventions that are pivotal to their products. The UK, on the other hand, has taken an entirely different view and will not be making any changes to its own regime. This is very clearly a Brexit victory. But it's not one you are going to read about because it is not a sexy subject. My guess is that there are similar things happening in many other areas too.

    I think it's only fair for me to say this as I am someone who has been very clear that the Brexit we chose to pursue was insane. I still hold that view but I am less persuaded than I was that Brexit in and of itself was a bad idea. My experience tells me there probably was a way to make it a success. But that collapsed as an option as soon as the government decided to go for a maximalist approach to sovereignty. It is going to take many years for us to recover from that blinkered act of self-harm.

    That’s handily synchronised with Sir Keir’s ‘journey’ from rubbishing everything to do with Brexit and demanding another vote, to finding some positives now he is likely to be in charge

    But now you’ve found a way to support a Labour government doing Brexity things instead of finding fault with anything a rival came up with.

    There is only one post-election trajectory Labour is going to follow - in government or opposition - ever closer ties with the EU. MPs and the membership will demand it, most voters will either not care or welcome it.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,239

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    Where do you get your numbers from?

    It is now two to one on that the cull will exceed 200.
    Sorry if that sounded a bit snotty, Sandpit, but I speak with considerable smugness in my voice.

    In Benpointer's excellent competition, I predicted a Labour Majority of 254, which was 54 more than any other entry. I wondered at the time if I had overdone it a bit, but if I could resubmit I would make it more like 452.

    As so many on here remarked, Sunak missed his last best chance when he passed over the May election option. It can surely only get worse for him now.
    For Labour to have a majority of c 450 doesn’t that mean the Conservatives having 0 seats or very close to 0?

    I mean, I know I’m keen on the notion of a sizeable Labour majority but that’s, erm, bold ;)
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129
    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    And with that, we're back on topic. The "good idea, done badly, not gone far enough" is the sort of thing that devotees of St Jeremy The Martyr say as well.

    The will of the people is pretty clearly that this isn't going well and is probably a mistake. There's not much enthusiasm for any alternative but the status quo is seen as rubbish. The only useful questions are what the British state does with that information and when?
    It's now more than ever that we are expected to embrace our national motto: mustn't grumble.
    If there is one thing Britons can unite around it is having a good moan. "Mustn't grumble" is superb British irony considering that is what we do most.
    There being a lot more than usual to grumble about right now

    Good morning
    Oh I don't know about that. Things have been going to hell in a handcart for many years.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,239
    edited March 23
    pigeon said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    And with that, we're back on topic. The "good idea, done badly, not gone far enough" is the sort of thing that devotees of St Jeremy The Martyr say as well.

    The will of the people is pretty clearly that this isn't going well and is probably a mistake. There's not much enthusiasm for any alternative but the status quo is seen as rubbish. The only useful questions are what the British state does with that information and when?
    It's now more than ever that we are expected to embrace our national motto: mustn't grumble.
    If there is one thing Britons can unite around it is having a good moan. "Mustn't grumble" is superb British irony considering that is what we do most.
    There being a lot more than usual to grumble about right now

    Good morning
    Oh I don't know about that. Things have been going to hell in a handcart for many years.
    Well yes. I now look back fondly to the 2012 London Olympics as the Cool Britannia swansong. It has been all downhill ever since.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,833
    Russian state news are reporting that Ukraine are behind the theatre attack, and they they apprehended suspects trying to flee West from Moscow towards the war zone.

    It’s likely to be total bollocks of course, but that’s what they’re saying.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Heathener said:

    pigeon said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    And with that, we're back on topic. The "good idea, done badly, not gone far enough" is the sort of thing that devotees of St Jeremy The Martyr say as well.

    The will of the people is pretty clearly that this isn't going well and is probably a mistake. There's not much enthusiasm for any alternative but the status quo is seen as rubbish. The only useful questions are what the British state does with that information and when?
    It's now more than ever that we are expected to embrace our national motto: mustn't grumble.
    If there is one thing Britons can unite around it is having a good moan. "Mustn't grumble" is superb British irony considering that is what we do most.
    There being a lot more than usual to grumble about right now

    Good morning
    Oh I don't know about that. Things have been going to hell in a handcart for many years.
    Well yes. I now look back fondly to the 2012 London Olympics as the Cool Britannia swansong. It has been all downhill ever since.
    I recall one of Leon's previous incarnations waxing lyrical about our power and influence at the time.
    Now he's contemplating permanent self-exile.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129
    Heathener said:

    I missed this prediction competition for the GE as I was off air for a long time whilst travelling. Presumably the comp is still open until the day itself? @Benpointer

    You all know my views on this, resolutely stated over the past couple of years. So I’ll punt for the number of Cons MPs to be 80-130 after the GE, which equates to I don’t know what in terms of a Labour majority. I guess around 250?

    If the comp is still open then I'd also like to enter, but predicting a hung Parliament.

    At this juncture a Labour landslide looks more probable, but I'm stubborn.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
    Rationality and Donald Trump's supporters have been strangers for quite some time now.
    The big money in the deal comes from a TikTok investor Trump backer.
    It's essentially a way of channelling a lot of money to Trump at arms length - and will suck in a lot of suckers as a bonus.
    This guy (biggest single GOP donor, currently)

    The biggest institutional investor in the SPAC that’s merging with Truth Social is Susquehanna International Group LLP, which was co-founded by GOP megadonor Jeffrey Yass.

    The deal is poised to give Donald Trump a massive financial lifeline.

    https://twitter.com/CREWcrew/status/1771225541254787535
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284
    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    Where do you get your numbers from?

    It is now two to one on that the cull will exceed 200.
    Sorry if that sounded a bit snotty, Sandpit, but I speak with considerable smugness in my voice.

    In Benpointer's excellent competition, I predicted a Labour Majority of 254, which was 54 more than any other entry. I wondered at the time if I had overdone it a bit, but if I could resubmit I would make it more like 452.

    As so many on here remarked, Sunak missed his last best chance when he passed over the May election option. It can surely only get worse for him now.
    For Labour to have a majority of c 450 doesn’t that mean the Conservatives having 0 seats or very close to 0?

    I mean, I know I’m keen on the notion of a sizeable Labour majority but that’s, erm, bold ;)
    Don't rule out the possibility, young Heath.

    Topping was on here predicting the othert day that Sunak will hold on until Jan 2025. If he's right, zero is a very plausible number.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,098
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
    Rationality and Donald Trump's supporters have been strangers for quite some time now.
    The big money in the deal comes from a TikTok investor Trump backer.
    It's essentially a way of channelling a lot of money to Trump at arms length - and will suck in a lot of suckers as a bonus.
    I've had some genuinely insane clients over the years, one who explained that her neighbours spied on her by a device planted in her teeth comes to mind, but acting for Trump is such a no win disaster that I am amazed anyone operating a viable business even thinks about it. Not only is he a legend in the annals of non payment, he constantly undermines his lawyers and demonstrates that they are pedalling lies on his behalf.

    So Trump now claims to have $500m in cash at the end of the same week his lawyers said producing a bond for $454m was "impossible". What a complete idiot. And, as for the idea that he was going to spend his own money on his reelection campaign instead of other peoples, well, words fail me.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,239

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent a lot of time writing it...

    I must admit I'm confused by the idea that leaving the EU would have any significant impact on economic growth.

    As a business owner, there are some tiny positives and some tiny negatives, but the reality is that we could always sell to anyone in the world, and we can always buy from anyone in the world. Tariffs are no different for selling to the EU as previously, and paperwork is very mildly worse.

    Of course, as most exports from the UK are services anyway, the impact is essentially negligible, especially as most EU countries have implemented legislation to allow cross recognition of professional standards.

    What is the mechanism by which EU membership is supposed to either massively boost or massively hinder economic growth?

    The big issues companies (and economies face) is the availability of skilled employees, tax and benefits systems. Almost all of those are national competences. Hence the fact that some EU countries have done pretty well, and some have not.

    We did better than the EU when we were members, largely because we had a great legal system, were open to inward investment, speak English, and have a flexible labour market.

    On the other hand, we have an economy dominated by consumption, due to insufficient household savings. And that number is entirely due to UK government policies.

    I support Brexit because I think it's better that decisions are taken closer to people, and Brexit allows that. I support because small and nimble is usually best. I regret the lack of FoM, which has made sourcing skilled engineers slightly harder. But I also recognize that the UK benefits system is essentially incompatible with FoM. I am not displeased to have avoided EU AI regulation, but I also know a couple of European companies that are doing some amazing work there, especially in the medical space, so I doubt it'll have as much effect as people think.

    I regret that people have become so wedded to their views that they are unwilling to recognize that almost everything contains positives and negatives. And that those calculations will be different to individual people.

    Most of all, I regret that people think Brexit is a cure all for problems that are essentially domestic: our insufficient household savings rate that causes our trade deficit, our inability to free up building regulation, our tax and benefits system that discourage lower skilled workers from finding employment, and most of all a vocational education system that is a pale shadow of those in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark.

    My oft-stated position was that Britain could be successful within or outside the EU. However, europhobes successfully sold the lie that the EU was seen as the reason for failures that were caused much closer to home. Leaving the EU has not fixed those issues, as they were not caused by the EU in the first place.

    I can be argued that leaving the EU has made it easier for those issues to be solved. Perhaps. But they are not being, perhaps because of the central conceit that they were caused by the EU, not ourselves, is not being addressed.

    It is always easier to blame others than to blame ourselves.
    Actually many Brexiteers made the argument that the EU gave our national leaders false cover "would love to do something, can't sorry, Europe won't let us" and that Brexit means that now politicians have to take responsibility.

    That doesn't mean our first post Brexit government can, should or will be perfect, of course that's not the case. Nor will the second or third. But we as voters can hold our elected politicians to account and kick them out when they fail, no hiding spaces.
    I've always found that argument the most spurious straw grasping after any other 'benefits' have dissolved. Firstly and most obviously, it is a case itself of blaming the EU for failures in our own politics - in this case politicians not taking difficult decisions or making brave arguments about the importance of policies certain interests rage against.

    Secondly, because of that, inevitably, the blame has just shifted. Brexit true believers or those so politically tied to it they can't admit it's been crap blame 'Remoaners', 'The Blob', the EU (still) and now the European Court of Human Rights - settled on as the latest bogeyman. While Remainers can blame Brexit and the uselessness of Brexiteers and imagine a land of milk and honey upon rejoining and kicking them out of office.

    Take the immigration debate - it's quite obviously not resulted in it being addressed in a grown up way, with trade offs explained to the electorate, and with politicians working to find the most practical ways to stop undocumented crossings. Rather we've got exactly the same blame game but even more stupid and farcical than it was in the EU because there's no immediate requirement to make rhetoric work with partner nations.
    It is undoubtedly true that the optimistic assumption that our political class would actually accept responsibility for their actions once the bogeyman of the EU was removed has not been borne out.
    Well somewhere from 100-200 Tory MPs are about to find out the hard way what accountability looks like. So it’s all working as it should be.
    Where do you get your numbers from?

    It is now two to one on that the cull will exceed 200.
    Sorry if that sounded a bit snotty, Sandpit, but I speak with considerable smugness in my voice.

    In Benpointer's excellent competition, I predicted a Labour Majority of 254, which was 54 more than any other entry. I wondered at the time if I had overdone it a bit, but if I could resubmit I would make it more like 452.

    As so many on here remarked, Sunak missed his last best chance when he passed over the May election option. It can surely only get worse for him now.
    For Labour to have a majority of c 450 doesn’t that mean the Conservatives having 0 seats or very close to 0?

    I mean, I know I’m keen on the notion of a sizeable Labour majority but that’s, erm, bold ;)
    Don't rule out the possibility, young Heath.

    Topping was on here predicting the othert day that Sunak will hold on until Jan 2025. If he's right, zero is a very plausible number.
    Wow.

    Well, there’s a part of me which would love it just for the kicking it will give a Gov’t and party which I think deserve everything coming to them.

    However, I do feel that our democratic process needs an effective Opposition in parliament? Starmer in this regard is probably a lot more trustworthy than Blair, who was smug even before he was elected.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489
    pigeon said:

    Heathener said:

    I missed this prediction competition for the GE as I was off air for a long time whilst travelling. Presumably the comp is still open until the day itself? @Benpointer

    You all know my views on this, resolutely stated over the past couple of years. So I’ll punt for the number of Cons MPs to be 80-130 after the GE, which equates to I don’t know what in terms of a Labour majority. I guess around 250?

    If the comp is still open then I'd also like to enter, but predicting a hung Parliament.

    At this juncture a Labour landslide looks more probable, but I'm stubborn.
    Why would the competition still be open? Predictions (usually) get easier the nearer you get to the event. A competition needs to have a deadline.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
    Rationality and Donald Trump's supporters have been strangers for quite some time now.
    The big money in the deal comes from a TikTok investor Trump backer.
    It's essentially a way of channelling a lot of money to Trump at arms length - and will suck in a lot of suckers as a bonus.
    This guy (biggest single GOP donor, currently)

    The biggest institutional investor in the SPAC that’s merging with Truth Social is Susquehanna International Group LLP, which was co-founded by GOP megadonor Jeffrey Yass.

    The deal is poised to give Donald Trump a massive financial lifeline.

    https://twitter.com/CREWcrew/status/1771225541254787535
    But the valuation is based on the spac being worth $1.5bn before trump merged his business in taking 70% of the equity.

    That is where the $6bn figure comes from and it’s why the valuation makes no sense.

    Although with $300m in cash it’s got enough cash to cover its $50m or if costs.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,564
    Nigelb said:

    So the Senate passed the funding deal - which is essentially the same as the McCarthy/Biden deal from last summer.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/22/senate-tees-up-final-passage-vote-for-1-2t-funding-package-00148695

    The GOP House has spent best part of a year in futile grandstanding.

    It's what most of them prefer to do, though most eventually grudgingly pass funding deals.

    Has there ever been a modern legislature so unconcerned with legislating?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,564
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
    Rationality and Donald Trump's supporters have been strangers for quite some time now.
    The big money in the deal comes from a TikTok investor Trump backer.
    It's essentially a way of channelling a lot of money to Trump at arms length - and will suck in a lot of suckers as a bonus.
    This guy (biggest single GOP donor, currently)

    The biggest institutional investor in the SPAC that’s merging with Truth Social is Susquehanna International Group LLP, which was co-founded by GOP megadonor Jeffrey Yass.

    The deal is poised to give Donald Trump a massive financial lifeline.

    https://twitter.com/CREWcrew/status/1771225541254787535
    The man has the devil's own luck to get all the delays and lifelines he gets.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,165
    Sandpit said:

    Russian state news are reporting that Ukraine are behind the theatre attack, and they they apprehended suspects trying to flee West from Moscow towards the war zone.

    It’s likely to be total bollocks of course, but that’s what they’re saying.

    The problem for Putin is that

    1) he was warned, specifically
    2) multiple ISIS small attacks were foiled recently in Russia
    3) he publicly rejected the warning
    4) part of the whole strongman schtick it that “this doesn’t happen if I am in charge”

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019
    Sandpit said:

    Russian state news are reporting that Ukraine are behind the theatre attack, and they they apprehended suspects trying to flee West from Moscow towards the war zone.

    It’s likely to be total bollocks of course, but that’s what they’re saying.

    The problem will be the number of useful idiots who accept the Russian claims at face value. It might also provide some cover for China to provide more explicit support to Russia.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,043

    pigeon said:

    Heathener said:

    I missed this prediction competition for the GE as I was off air for a long time whilst travelling. Presumably the comp is still open until the day itself? @Benpointer

    You all know my views on this, resolutely stated over the past couple of years. So I’ll punt for the number of Cons MPs to be 80-130 after the GE, which equates to I don’t know what in terms of a Labour majority. I guess around 250?

    If the comp is still open then I'd also like to enter, but predicting a hung Parliament.

    At this juncture a Labour landslide looks more probable, but I'm stubborn.
    Why would the competition still be open? Predictions (usually) get easier the nearer you get to the event. A competition needs to have a deadline.
    Still, to predict an outcome that has become even less likely since the competition closed is brave!
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,239
    edited March 23

    pigeon said:

    Heathener said:

    I missed this prediction competition for the GE as I was off air for a long time whilst travelling. Presumably the comp is still open until the day itself? @Benpointer

    You all know my views on this, resolutely stated over the past couple of years. So I’ll punt for the number of Cons MPs to be 80-130 after the GE, which equates to I don’t know what in terms of a Labour majority. I guess around 250?

    If the comp is still open then I'd also like to enter, but predicting a hung Parliament.

    At this juncture a Labour landslide looks more probable, but I'm stubborn.
    Why would the competition still be open? Predictions (usually) get easier the nearer you get to the event. A competition needs to have a deadline.
    Oh well that’s a bugger. As I say, I was off air for some months. Bets don’t usually close until right before the event, but of course odds change.

    I feel a tad miffed as I’ve been stating on here for a couple of years that I believe the number of Cons MPs will be around 100-150. Not that this is a done deal yet by any means. There’s still a long way to go and every leftie will be told the tale of 1992.

    If it happens I will have to ride @Peter_the_Punter ’s coronation train with vicarious satisfaction.


  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,043

    Sandpit said:

    Russian state news are reporting that Ukraine are behind the theatre attack, and they they apprehended suspects trying to flee West from Moscow towards the war zone.

    It’s likely to be total bollocks of course, but that’s what they’re saying.

    The problem for Putin is that

    1) he was warned, specifically
    2) multiple ISIS small attacks were foiled recently in Russia
    3) he publicly rejected the warning
    4) part of the whole strongman schtick it that “this doesn’t happen if I am in charge”

    Putin has history when it comes to false flag attacks on Russian civilians so I wouldn't believe a fucking word that comes out of his mouth.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,081

    Sandpit said:

    Russian state news are reporting that Ukraine are behind the theatre attack, and they they apprehended suspects trying to flee West from Moscow towards the war zone.

    It’s likely to be total bollocks of course, but that’s what they’re saying.

    The problem will be the number of useful idiots who accept the Russian claims at face value. It might also provide some cover for China to provide more explicit support to Russia.
    Mentioning 'useful idiots' and 'China' in the same post is a tautology in this context.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Heathener said:

    pigeon said:

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    I understand why @rcs1000 was emotionally attached to the post about Brexit but it is not coherent either logically, practically or emotionally.

    @RochdalePioneers (a Brexiter) has given us chapter and verse about some of the economic hurdles now in place. Two anecdotally and trivially from me are movements of horses to and from the EU and a very small luxury clothing business which now finds it too expensive to import from the EU.

    But more important wrt the "decisions made closer to home" bullshit (soz) is that, in the words of that noble and fearless Brexiter David Davis, we were always s*v*r**gn. The tiniest number of things were subject to EU lawmaking (VAT on home energy and Droit de Suite for example and you have no idea what one of those is).

    You guys keep bleating on about shoulda woulda coulda but you sound like all those mad communists still agitating for that system. A great idea just that no one has done it right.

    And with that, we're back on topic. The "good idea, done badly, not gone far enough" is the sort of thing that devotees of St Jeremy The Martyr say as well.

    The will of the people is pretty clearly that this isn't going well and is probably a mistake. There's not much enthusiasm for any alternative but the status quo is seen as rubbish. The only useful questions are what the British state does with that information and when?
    It's now more than ever that we are expected to embrace our national motto: mustn't grumble.
    If there is one thing Britons can unite around it is having a good moan. "Mustn't grumble" is superb British irony considering that is what we do most.
    There being a lot more than usual to grumble about right now

    Good morning
    Oh I don't know about that. Things have been going to hell in a handcart for many years.
    Well yes. I now look back fondly to the 2012 London Olympics as the Cool Britannia swansong. It has been all downhill ever since.
    But what about the wrong coloured flags on the kit in 2012? Surely that spoiled the whole thing.

    On which topic next PM Penny Mordaunt is this morning showing she’s a serious politician for serious times:

    https://x.com/pennymordaunt/status/1771168462267691183?s=46
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,043
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    What's the truth about Truth Social making Trump billions? Is it really worth anything, or are lots of Trump-supporting investors going to lose money when the bubble bursts?

    The latter is true - $100 million a year turnover and $5million a year loss are the figures I’ve seen - but that may not stop the orange haired one making a lot of money if he realises his shares before the crash.

    Incidentally, I see he’s now saying he has all the money he needs to pay the bond to appeal the fine, because he had the cash. Which has absolutely kneecapped his lawyers who were arguing the bond should be waived because he didn’t have the cash…
    Other way round - its revenue is around $5m, and loss around $50m per annum.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/trump-media-reports-loss-on-paltry-sales-with-spac-deadline-near

    Essentially worthless on any rational basis.
    Rationality and Donald Trump's supporters have been strangers for quite some time now.
    The big money in the deal comes from a TikTok investor Trump backer.
    It's essentially a way of channelling a lot of money to Trump at arms length - and will suck in a lot of suckers as a bonus.
    This guy (biggest single GOP donor, currently)

    The biggest institutional investor in the SPAC that’s merging with Truth Social is Susquehanna International Group LLP, which was co-founded by GOP megadonor Jeffrey Yass.

    The deal is poised to give Donald Trump a massive financial lifeline.

    https://twitter.com/CREWcrew/status/1771225541254787535
    The man has the devil's own luck to get all the delays and lifelines he gets.
    Nah just rich friends.
Sign In or Register to comment.