"This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
Can you provide the line in the act authorizing the referendum that says it was legally binding?
Can you provide the line that says that it wasn't?
This is a pointless discussion; if you look at the Act you can see that it is advisory; the government said it was advisory when it proposed it (but also promised to implement the result), and simple logic can establish that it is advisory. What's the point in arguing about it?
Yes it's advisory and the government is going to exercise its powers based on the advice received.
Quite. Is this the most tedious PB debate of all time?
Erm, AV referendum??
That was a snoozathon.
At least the AV snoozathon was *before* the referendum on the subject!
It's not impacting inflation, yet we have a massive trade deficit - yet..
What % of our consumption is domestic and what imported though ?
We imported £548bn worth of goods and services in 2015, the economy is around £1.9tn nominal value so around 29% of our economic consumption is on imported goods and services.
Wrong slightly. The economy is measured by including exports and taking away imports. You need to take that into account.
"She’s very much assisted by the mediocre opposition that she faces from the LAB front bench which is one of the worst I have seen. "
I'm only 33, but when has there been worse?
IDS. Had say Ken Clarke or the vomit from a drunk been Leader of the Opposition in the run up to the Iraq war we might have avoided the greatest foreign policy and military disaster in this country's history.
But equally we might have been in the Euro....which would have become the greatest foreign policy disaster in this country's history.
Speaking purely selfishly - as one does - my modest nest egg is almost 50 grand more scrummy and yummy since the referendum, mostly apparently due to sterling's depreciation.
Down, you gorgeous, shameless pound, down, down, down.
''As everyone here knows, I don't like Rudd one iota - but she's kicking ass at CPC16.''
I now freely admit it looks like I read May wrong. If she's got the cojones for a hard Brexit as now seems likely, well that's ten times as much bottle as I thought she had.
I needed to pinch myself whilst watching Rudd - deporting EU citizens for repeated minor crimes, tougher on terror and loads more.
It was Howard on steroids. Excellent stuff.
Sounds good, will have to catch up on it later. Deporting foreign criminals, whoever would have thought of that!
Ooh, and thanks for posting the Guardian long read article on Dan Hannan yesterday, a really good read once I finally caught up!
I find Hannan really rather sexy and scary in a Professor Moriarty way - he'd make a master criminal if he'd chosen another path.
"This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
Can you provide the line in the act authorizing the referendum that says it was legally binding?
Can you provide the line that says that it wasn't?
I have just re read the act provisions. There is no line which says it is legally binding. It does not need to have any line to verify that it is NOT legally binding as no referendum is unless specific provision is made for it to be so in its enabling act.
People are still arguing about this?! Christ, even on PB this is getting silly.
Bottom line, people are free to donate their political careers to try and stop Brexit, it is legally permissable to try to stop it, to in fact ignore the referendum completely. That a minority of Remainers would indeed like to try that does not make it in any way likely, so every Brexiter should relax.
As everyone here knows, I don't like Rudd one iota - but she's kicking ass at CPC16.
Have you re-joined the party yet - and yes Amber Rudd very impressive. This is the first conservative conference for ages that feels conservative
I'm inching closer - still not convinced. Very bruised over Brexit Cameroon behaviour. But watching CPC16 is wooing.
I supported David Cameron but that is past and we have in Theresa May a grounded politician and a party conference ticking all the right boxes. Looking forward to her speech tomorrow afternoon
"She’s very much assisted by the mediocre opposition that she faces from the LAB front bench which is one of the worst I have seen. "
I'm only 33, but when has there been worse?
IDS. Had say Ken Clarke or the vomit from a drunk been Leader of the Opposition in the run up to the Iraq war we might have avoided the greatest foreign policy and military disaster in this country's history.
But equally we might have been in the Euro....which would have become the greatest foreign policy disaster in this country's history.
The Norway Campaign was pretty dreadful, too....
We would have had a referendum on joining the Euro. Trust the people,
I still think the fall of Singapore was the biggest eff up in terms of military disasters, that along any losses to France.
"This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
Can you provide the line in the act authorizing the referendum that says it was legally binding?
Can you provide the line that says that it wasn't?
I have just re read the act provisions. There is no line which says it is legally binding. It does not need to have any line to verify that it is NOT legally binding as no referendum is unless specific provision is made for it to be so in its enabling act.
People are still arguing about this?! Christ, even on PB this is getting silly.
Bottom line, people are free to donate their political careers to try and stop Brexit, it is legally permissable to try to stop it, to in fact ignore the referendum completely. That a minority of Remainers would indeed like to try that does not make it in any way likely, so every Brexiter should relax.
Nobody is answering the difficult question - which Brexit?
I was going to be pedantic and point this out ( I think there are about a dozen 'Grammar Schools' in Scotland) but they are non-selective so I thought I'd let it past.
The other major difference between Scotland and England of course is the lack of fee paying schools.
The tipping point with France is about €1.19 vs €1.14 at the moment, but the French economy is not expanding, around 4% of nominal growth will bridge the gap at current rates. Given where inflation is heading and current rates of expansion we might get fifth place back by this time next year anyway.
Never were Grammar Schools in Scotland but I did go to the one probably nearest in Berwick on Tweed
Really? My father went to what from his description sounded like a grammar school in 1960s Glasgow. Got him from a shitty council estate to the middle classes.
@Casino_Royale As you read through this thread, you can feel Britain shrinking: shrinking in economy size relative to its competitors, shrinking in influence, shrinking in its horizons. The Leavers sought this shrivelling and so must embrace it. We are reading of Leavers who are happy not to be taking foreign holidays.
The country has not yet finished its descent to the bottom of this well.
Supporting them in Scotland would be similar to committing Hari Kari. Given the donkey flip flops on a daily basis , she will be supporting soon, as soon as BigT sends her the e-mail.
"This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
Can you provide the line in the act authorizing the referendum that says it was legally binding?
Can you provide the line that says that it wasn't?
I have just re read the act provisions. There is no line which says it is legally binding. It does not need to have any line to verify that it is NOT legally binding as no referendum is unless specific provision is made for it to be so in its enabling act.
People are still arguing about this?! Christ, even on PB this is getting silly.
Bottom line, people are free to donate their political careers to try and stop Brexit, it is legally permissable to try to stop it, to in fact ignore the referendum completely. That a minority of Remainers would indeed like to try that does not make it in any way likely, so every Brexiter should relax.
Nobody is answering the difficult question - which Brexit?
I would be interested (seriously) to know how much faith those here that are clearly keen and eager to see Brexit actually have in the ability of the current government to make the best of it?
This supposed correlation between the levels of UK equities and the GBPUSD rate is often quoted on this site, but the analysis here: http://stockmarketalmanac.co.uk/2013/02/correlation-between-gbpusd-and-uk-equities/ seems to suggest little correlation between the two. Which is right? I know intuition might support it but the data is hard to naysay.
This seems a bit mad. Exchange rates tend to hover around the same place for a while then do the big moves in a short space of time, so why would you hide the signal in noise by grouping it by months and plotting a point for every month?
I was going to be pedantic and point this out ( I think there are about a dozen 'Grammar Schools' in Scotland) but they are non-selective so I thought I'd let it past.
The other major difference between Scotland and England of course is the lack of fee paying schools.
Ummm
Scotland did use selective entry (until it was abolished)
OR just proof that she knows what's electorally good for her in Socialist Republic of Scotland.
Scotland can't be that socialist, the Tories are the second largest party in Scotland, and given Ruth's performance, they may well be the largest party in Scotland within a few years.
You are a sandwich short of a picnic if you even harbour that thought. They are going nowhere. Unbelievable the fantasy world the frothers on here live in.
Speaking purely selfishly - as one does - my modest nest egg is almost 50 grand more scrummy and yummy since the referendum, mostly apparently due to sterling's depreciation.
Down, you gorgeous, shameless pound, down, down, down.
''As everyone here knows, I don't like Rudd one iota - but she's kicking ass at CPC16.''
I now freely admit it looks like I read May wrong. If she's got the cojones for a hard Brexit as now seems likely, well that's ten times as much bottle as I thought she had.
I needed to pinch myself whilst watching Rudd - deporting EU citizens for repeated minor crimes, tougher on terror and loads more.
It was Howard on steroids. Excellent stuff.
Sounds good, will have to catch up on it later. Deporting foreign criminals, whoever would have thought of that!
Ooh, and thanks for posting the Guardian long read article on Dan Hannan yesterday, a really good read once I finally caught up!
I find Hannan really rather sexy and scary in a Professor Moriarty way - he'd make a master criminal if he'd chosen another path.
You just said that out loud!
I hadn't heard much of his back story before, working in the '90s with the 'bastards' and for the Telegraph as a leader writer. Will be fascinating to see what he does after we finally give him the P45 he's craved for so long!
"This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
Can you provide the line in the act authorizing the referendum that says it was legally binding?
Can you provide the line that says that it wasn't?
This is a pointless discussion; if you look at the Act you can see that it is advisory; the government said it was advisory when it proposed it (but also promised to implement the result), and simple logic can establish that it is advisory. What's the point in arguing about it?
Yes it's advisory and the government is going to exercise its powers based on the advice received.
Quite. Is this the most tedious PB debate of all time?
Erm, AV referendum??
That was a snoozathon.
The problem of the AV referendum was that no one explained the advantages properly on PB. Could anyone contribute a summary of its manyfold advantages? :-)
Speaking purely selfishly - as one does - my modest nest egg is almost 50 grand more scrummy and yummy since the referendum, mostly apparently due to sterling's depreciation.
Down, you gorgeous, shameless pound, down, down, down.
But is your 300k? pot worth more or less in US$ terms
The problem of the AV referendum was that no one explained the advantages properly on PB. Could anyone contribute a summary of its manyfold advantages? :-)
''Doctors will have to repay thousands if they leave NHS too soon after training. The first consequence of their botched strike.''
They are also ramping up the supply of new medics. Both long overdue.
Repay training costs -- that won't last -- it's politically daft because doctors *ought* to be voting Tory if Hunt would stop upsetting them, and more importantly will hit women hardest, and the PM is one of them.
I am 73 and cannot ever remember a worse opposition
The Opposition from 2001 to 2005 was diabolical. Blair decided we were going to war in Iraq on the evidence of some dodgy dossier yet the Opposition leader was so gung ho he wanted to send in more troops.
Then we had the spectacle of the Shadow Home Secretary being forced to support a policy on Identity Cards that he had publicly opposed.
They even wanted to throw more money at the public services than Gordon Brown, would you believe ?
One of their leaders kept trying to "turn up the volume" - it wasn't that nobody could hear him, nobody was listening but the party faithful kept standing up everytime he spoke like something out of a North Korean rally.
The problem of the AV referendum was that no one explained the advantages properly on PB. Could anyone contribute a summary of its manyfold advantages? :-)
There is a world of difference between having $ 2,80 as a virility symbol and accepting that the £ sterling is a less desirable currency to hold than the Bangladesh Taka , Iranian Rial and Guatemalan Quetzel to give just 3 examples .
There is a world of difference between having $ 2,80 as a virility symbol and accepting that the £ sterling is a less desirable currency to hold than the Bangladesh Taka , Iranian Rial and Guatemalan Quetzel to give just 3 examples .
Given that our economy is plainly in better shape than any of those three countries, it's all rather irrelevant.
If at some point in the future, the pound appreciates against those currencies, it won't say very much either.
Indeed, I wonder what the off-shore holdings or central bank reserve holdings total in those currencies vs sterling. Come to think of it, no, I don't wonder ... It's f*cking obvious. Mark Senior being a twat again.
@Casino_Royale As you read through this thread, you can feel Britain shrinking: shrinking in economy size relative to its competitors, shrinking in influence, shrinking in its horizons. The Leavers sought this shrivelling and so must embrace it. We are reading of Leavers who are happy not to be taking foreign holidays. The country has not yet finished its descent to the bottom of this well.
Our economy is probably smaller than France's by now. At what point does it become smaller than Italy's?
On the current GBP/USD and EUR/USD exchange rates, France has overtaken us into second, albeit marginally ($2.53trl vs $2.48trl). Italy is, however, some way behind ($1.91trl). India will likely overtake us in the next two years, so we are in danger of theoretically falling out of the G7.
Edit to add: oops, I mean falling into 7th position...
''Doctors will have to repay thousands if they leave NHS too soon after training. The first consequence of their botched strike.''
They are also ramping up the supply of new medics. Both long overdue.
Repay training costs -- that won't last -- it's politically daft because doctors *ought* to be voting Tory if Hunt would stop upsetting them, and more importantly will hit women hardest, and the PM is one of them.
Training bonds are quite common in the private sector. There's no reason why the NHS should spend hundreds of thousands training someone, for them to disappear at the first opportunity once they're trained and able to earn money.
"She’s very much assisted by the mediocre opposition that she faces from the LAB front bench which is one of the worst I have seen. "
I'm only 33, but when has there been worse?
IDS. Had say Ken Clarke or the vomit from a drunk been Leader of the Opposition in the run up to the Iraq war we might have avoided the greatest foreign policy and military disaster in this country's history.
But equally we might have been in the Euro....which would have become the greatest foreign policy disaster in this country's history.
The Norway Campaign was pretty dreadful, too....
We would have had a referendum on joining the Euro. Trust the people,
I still think the fall of Singapore was the biggest eff up in terms of military disasters, that along any losses to France.
See Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on PQ17 an Arctic Convoy Disaster, if you want to judge cock-ups by stupid decisions rather than lives or territory lost. Spoiler: the convoy was scattered to avoid Tirpitz, which was not at sea.
''Doctors will have to repay thousands if they leave NHS too soon after training. The first consequence of their botched strike.''
They are also ramping up the supply of new medics. Both long overdue.
It will be 2028 before any of the new Docs are out of the Foundation programme, so not going to affect anyone for a long time yet.
The 25% expansion of medical school intake is long overdue, but probably needs to be at least another 25% to allow for demography. It should keep me occupied for the next few years at the Medical School.
And on the plus side it does mean that the Tories still plan to have a NHS in 2028....
On topic, the inflation will come with time, as the oil price starts to climb and US rate rises strengthen the dollar further. The reversal of the panicked rate cut of August would be a good starting point, but a return of interest rates to something approaching normality would make a big positive medium term difference to the economy.
What would be the economic justification to return them to normality? And, more interestingly, what is normality?
Morning all. Are people here in favour of Gatwick, Heathrow, or Heathrow Hub, or any combination thereof? I'm liking the cut of Heathrow Hub's gib at the moment (probably meaning they won't get the gig).
Heathrow Hub is the extension of the current north runway? Do that and build runway 3, resulting in four effective runways. Require a plan to reduce overall noise impact from the airport to keep neighbours happy.
Yes. And it requires a lot less disturbance to communities. You'd think for that reason it would be T May's choice. But it also seems to have quite a good plan for surrounding transport infrastructure too. http://www.heathrowhub.com
Its interesting that there doesn't seem to be much made here of the distinction between the Heathrow and Heathrow Hub proposals.
Have you read the Airports Commission final report, which goes thoroughly into the advantages and disadvantages of both Heathrow expansion and Heathrow Hub?
Thanks, an interesting read. I disagree with the weight they attach to the various arguments for a third runway vs. extending the 2nd, and therefore their conclusion.
I'd give Heathrow Hub the go ahead, and give Gatwick the go-ahead if they think they can make it work with Heathrow expanding also.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
It seems to have become their version of the 'magic money tree' when no matter how crappily you run the economy there is no such thing as bad news - so long as you never go abroad or buy any foreign made goods...ever...
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
Not only have Conservatives become the proponents of devaluation they have become the proponents of inflation too .
2% inflation yes. Below that is bad, above that is bad, that is target.
We have gone from being 1.5% away from our inflation target to 1.4% away from target. Hopefully we will continue to get closer to target.
I'd be looking for 3% inflation and 2% growth for a few years if I were the newly installed chancellor. The reverse seems unlikely at the moment.
Indeed a few years of 5% nominal growth would do wonders for the Treasury. And be with inflation closer to target than what we have today.
When inflation is too high everyone acknowledges a fall as a good thing. What's weird is we have so many economically illiterate people that they think a modest rise in inflation when it's too low is bad thing. Too low is as bad as too high.
''Doctors will have to repay thousands if they leave NHS too soon after training. The first consequence of their botched strike.''
They are also ramping up the supply of new medics. Both long overdue.
Repay training costs -- that won't last -- it's politically daft because doctors *ought* to be voting Tory if Hunt would stop upsetting them, and more importantly will hit women hardest, and the PM is one of them.
Training bonds are quite common in the private sector. There's no reason why the NHS should spend hundreds of thousands training someone, for them to disappear at the first opportunity once they're trained and able to earn money.
No doubt the government can justify it -- but it is politically stupid for the reasons I've given, and I suspect will be quietly dropped.
Scotland has no grammars and the SNP government decide education policy so what Davidson thinks makes little real difference either way at present, though some Scottish Tory voters may like grammars
''As everyone here knows, I don't like Rudd one iota - but she's kicking ass at CPC16.''
I now freely admit it looks like I read May wrong. If she's got the cojones for a hard Brexit as now seems likely, well that's ten times as much bottle as I thought she had.
I needed to pinch myself whilst watching Rudd - deporting EU citizens for repeated minor crimes, tougher on terror and loads more.
It was Howard on steroids. Excellent stuff.
Sounds good, will have to catch up on it later. Deporting foreign criminals, whoever would have thought of that!
Ooh, and thanks for posting the Guardian long read article on Dan Hannan yesterday, a really good read once I finally caught up!
I find Hannan really rather sexy and scary in a Professor Moriarty way - he'd make a master criminal if he'd chosen another path.
You just said that out loud!
I hadn't heard much of his back story before, working in the '90s with the 'bastards' and for the Telegraph as a leader writer. Will be fascinating to see what he does after we finally give him the P45 he's craved for so long!
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
It seems to have become their version of the 'magic money tree' when no matter how crappily you run the economy there is no such thing as bad news - so long as you never go abroad or buy any foreign made goods...ever...
Whereas in the "global economic race" the exchange rate is effectively the score.
''Doctors will have to repay thousands if they leave NHS too soon after training. The first consequence of their botched strike.''
They are also ramping up the supply of new medics. Both long overdue.
Repay training costs -- that won't last -- it's politically daft because doctors *ought* to be voting Tory if Hunt would stop upsetting them, and more importantly will hit women hardest, and the PM is one of them.
Training bonds are quite common in the private sector. There's no reason why the NHS should spend hundreds of thousands training someone, for them to disappear at the first opportunity once they're trained and able to earn money.
Easier than this would be to have a scheme whereby you have x knocked off your student loan / reduced rate of repayment for every year you work in the NHS. Set at the right level it could certainly stop the standard procession of dentists doing their training, handful of years in NHS dentistry then off to private practice asap.
''Doctors will have to repay thousands if they leave NHS too soon after training. The first consequence of their botched strike.''
They are also ramping up the supply of new medics. Both long overdue.
It will be 2028 before any of the new Docs are out of the Foundation programme, so not going to affect anyone for a long time yet.
The 25% expansion of medical school intake is long overdue, but probably needs to be at least another 25% to allow for demography. It should keep me occupied for the next few years at the Medical School.
And on the plus side it does mean that the Tories still plan to have a NHS in 2028....
Is UCLAN Medical School accepting British students? Was told, on not very good authority, admittedly, that it wasn’t.
''Doctors will have to repay thousands if they leave NHS too soon after training. The first consequence of their botched strike.''
They are also ramping up the supply of new medics. Both long overdue.
Repay training costs -- that won't last -- it's politically daft because doctors *ought* to be voting Tory if Hunt would stop upsetting them, and more importantly will hit women hardest, and the PM is one of them.
Training bonds are quite common in the private sector. There's no reason why the NHS should spend hundreds of thousands training someone, for them to disappear at the first opportunity once they're trained and able to earn money.
IIRC the RAF contract requires a number of years service in return for training.
I was going to be pedantic and point this out ( I think there are about a dozen 'Grammar Schools' in Scotland) but they are non-selective so I thought I'd let it past.
The other major difference between Scotland and England of course is the lack of fee paying schools.
Lamont, Darling, Blair etc all went to Scottish private schools
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
'That didn’t go over well with Trump backers who had stayed up through the night, thinking they’d be watching live the unveiling of the death blow to the Clinton campaign.'
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
For all our talk on here, the Torygraph seems to have forgotten the basics of how the British state works when they say that "Theresa May will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act". She can't do any such thing.
Neither Theresa May nor the government have the authority to trigger Article 50 either. Why? Because doing so would reverse a decision by Parliament, which can only be done by Parliament. Only Parliament can give them that authority. Even if the leader of this pearls-and-hairstyle cackheap of a government, with its clown as a Foreign Secretary - a government which probably won't last long - did send in an Article 50 letter, the Supreme Court would declare that her act of doing so was unlawful. And that, dear Leavers, is what counts. The Commission would have to swallow that and rip the letter up.
For all our talk on here, the Torygraph seems to have forgotten the basics of how the British state works when they say that "Theresa May will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act". She can't do any such thing.
Neither Theresa May nor the government have the authority to trigger Article 50. Why? Because doing so would reverse a decision by Parliament, which can only be done by Parliament. Even if the leader of this pearls-and-hairstyle cackheap of a government, which probably won't last long, did send in an Article 50 letter, the Supreme Court would declare that doing so was an unlawful Act. And that, dear Leavers, is what counts. The Commission would have to swallow that and rip the letter up.
Speaking purely selfishly - as one does - my modest nest egg is almost 50 grand more scrummy and yummy since the referendum, mostly apparently due to sterling's depreciation.
Down, you gorgeous, shameless pound, down, down, down.
The trick is to spread your assets evenly between the places you need to spend/earn money in. In my case we have almost negative inflation here in Spain and although my monthly pension is converted from £s the bulk of my assets are spread out in banks and property. The latter is handy as even when it goes belly up it remains somewhere to lay your head at night!
Leavers trust Boris Johnson the most out of the three Brexiteers to get the best deal for Britain as it prepares to quit the EU, according to a poll.
But the BMG Research survey also found Remainers trust him least, suggesting many have not forgiven Mr Johnson for his role in leading the Out campaign.
The Foreign Secretary was backed by 38 per cent of Leave voters to ensure the most favourable Brexit agreement, followed by Brexit Secretary David Davis at 20 per cent and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox on 12 per cent.
I am 73 and cannot ever remember a worse opposition
The Opposition from 2001 to 2005 was diabolical. Blair decided we were going to war in Iraq on the evidence of some dodgy dossier yet the Opposition leader was so gung ho he wanted to send in more troops.
Then we had the spectacle of the Shadow Home Secretary being forced to support a policy on Identity Cards that he had publicly opposed.
They even wanted to throw more money at the public services than Gordon Brown, would you believe ?
One of their leaders kept trying to "turn up the volume" - it wasn't that nobody could hear him, nobody was listening but the party faithful kept standing up everytime he spoke like something out of a North Korean rally.
Happy days...
IDS 'laughing' during a John Humphrys interview was toe curling.
''Doctors will have to repay thousands if they leave NHS too soon after training. The first consequence of their botched strike.''
They are also ramping up the supply of new medics. Both long overdue.
It will be 2028 before any of the new Docs are out of the Foundation programme, so not going to affect anyone for a long time yet.
The 25% expansion of medical school intake is long overdue, but probably needs to be at least another 25% to allow for demography. It should keep me occupied for the next few years at the Medical School.
And on the plus side it does mean that the Tories still plan to have a NHS in 2028....
Is UCLAN Medical School accepting British students? Was told, on not very good authority, admittedly, that it wasn’t.
I am not sure.
The British taxpayer is getting ripped off if it thinks training a Doctor costs £250 000 over 5 years.
It is possible to train in English speaking medical schools in Europe for as little as £5 000 per year, with no obligation to work anywhere. Even the Milan medical school costs about 20% of the quoted price in the UK.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
But inflation is low because the economy is flat on its back. Inflation generated by the increasing cost of imports - which includes consumer goods many Brits consider essentials as well as components that go into our exports - is never going to be a good thing. The only upside will be a modest reduction in the real value of debt, more than cancelled out by the spending the government will be forced to make to keep the country out of recession, and a sustained period of inflation when the rest of the world isn't having any will simply drive the currency down further.
For all our talk on here, the Torygraph seems to have forgotten the basics of how the British state works when they say that "Theresa May will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act". She can't do any such thing.
Neither Theresa May nor the government have the authority to trigger Article 50. Why? Because doing so would reverse a decision by Parliament, which can only be done by Parliament. Even if the leader of this pearls-and-hairstyle cackheap of a government, which probably won't last long, did send in an Article 50 letter, the Supreme Court would declare that doing so was an unlawful Act. And that, dear Leavers, is what counts. The Commission would have to swallow that and rip the letter up.
LOL. Excellent troll.
If it were, it wouldn't be so clever to feed me, would it, even in three words?
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
Not for those consumers who are price sensitive - I thought the new Conservative party was supposed to care about those people.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
Not for those consumers who are price sensitive - I thought the new Conservative party was supposed to care about those people.
Yes for those consumers as growth will mean wages rise faster than inflation. Our inflation target is 2%, not 0% for a reason. If you think we should have a 0% inflation target then argue for that, but I don't.
Leavers trust Boris Johnson the most out of the three Brexiteers to get the best deal for Britain as it prepares to quit the EU, according to a poll.
But the BMG Research survey also found Remainers trust him least, suggesting many have not forgiven Mr Johnson for his role in leading the Out campaign.
The Foreign Secretary was backed by 38 per cent of Leave voters to ensure the most favourable Brexit agreement, followed by Brexit Secretary David Davis at 20 per cent and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox on 12 per cent.
Leavers trust Boris Johnson the most out of the three Brexiteers to get the best deal for Britain as it prepares to quit the EU, according to a poll.
But the BMG Research survey also found Remainers trust him least, suggesting many have not forgiven Mr Johnson for his role in leading the Out campaign.
The Foreign Secretary was backed by 38 per cent of Leave voters to ensure the most favourable Brexit agreement, followed by Brexit Secretary David Davis at 20 per cent and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox on 12 per cent.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
But inflation is low because the economy is flat on its back. Inflation generated by the increasing cost of imports - which includes consumer goods many Brits consider essentials as well as components that go into our exports - is never going to be a good thing. The only upside will be a modest reduction in the real value of debt, more than cancelled out by the spending the government will be forced to make to keep the country out of recession, and a sustained period of inflation when the rest of the world isn't having any will simply drive the currency down further.
No it's not, inflation is low because in large part globally inflation is low. Even when we are growing at above 2% per annum inflation has been dangerously low.
Improving inflation will improve our balance of trade and improve growth as we export more. Companies which grow because of exports will pay their employees who can spend more with local service economies etc who don't export but gain from improved confidence. Win, win.
Or do you think we should have a 0% inflation target even at the cost of our trade?
For all our talk on here, the Torygraph seems to have forgotten the basics of how the British state works when they say that "Theresa May will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act". She can't do any such thing.
Neither Theresa May nor the government have the authority to trigger Article 50 either. Why? Because doing so would reverse a decision by Parliament, which can only be done by Parliament. Only Parliament can give them that authority. Even if the leader of this pearls-and-hairstyle cackheap of a government, with its clown as a Foreign Secretary - a government which probably won't last long - did send in an Article 50 letter, the Supreme Court would declare that her act of doing so was unlawful. And that, dear Leavers, is what counts. The Commission would have to swallow that and rip the letter up.
Quite some feat typing all that with one hand on the keyboard. What you have there is a big pile of steaming opinion, conjecture and supposition, a more erudite version of which is currently awaiting deliberation by the Supreme Court, where the august justices will decide if there is some merit in that argument, or if you are talking complete bollocks
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
Not for those consumers who are price sensitive - I thought the new Conservative party was supposed to care about those people.
Yes for those consumers as growth will mean wages rise faster than inflation. Our inflation target is 2%, not 0% for a reason. If you think we should have a 0% inflation target then argue for that, but I don't.
Not much evidence of that over the past few years - and wage growth when it does come is rarely evenly spread. I accept the point about inflation of course but the continued pretence that an ever-sliding currency somehow reflects a healthy economy is risible pants as you well know.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
Not for those consumers who are price sensitive - I thought the new Conservative party was supposed to care about those people.
Yes for those consumers as growth will mean wages rise faster than inflation. Our inflation target is 2%, not 0% for a reason. If you think we should have a 0% inflation target then argue for that, but I don't.
Not much evidence of that over the past few years - and wage growth when it does come is rarely evenly spread. I accept the point about inflation of course but the continued pretence that an ever-sliding currency somehow reflects a healthy economy is risible pants as you well know.
I never said a falling currency reflects a healthy economy, that would be to put the cart before the horse. I said a falling currency is good for the economy given our combination of a high trade deficit and dangerously low inflation. If we had a trade surplus and rampant inflation then I'd be more panicked by a currency devaluation, but we don't.
@Casino_Royale As you read through this thread, you can feel Britain shrinking: shrinking in economy size relative to its competitors, shrinking in influence, shrinking in its horizons. The Leavers sought this shrivelling and so must embrace it. We are reading of Leavers who are happy not to be taking foreign holidays.
The country has not yet finished its descent to the bottom of this well.
Time for a holiday in vibrant Italy?
With each wriggling Remainer posting about how Parliament needs to do this (which delays or denies Brexit), the people did not mean a, b or c, it was so close that we must have the softest of Brexits, other EU countries are going to crucify us for having the temerity to say your federalism is not for us, I grow immensely proud of the general common sense and democratic impetus of the British people in voting Leave.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
But inflation is low because the economy is flat on its back. Inflation generated by the increasing cost of imports - which includes consumer goods many Brits consider essentials as well as components that go into our exports - is never going to be a good thing. The only upside will be a modest reduction in the real value of debt, more than cancelled out by the spending the government will be forced to make to keep the country out of recession, and a sustained period of inflation when the rest of the world isn't having any will simply drive the currency down further.
No it's not, inflation is low because in large part globally inflation is low. Even when we are growing at above 2% per annum inflation has been dangerously low.
Improving inflation will improve our balance of trade and improve growth as we export more. Companies which grow because of exports will pay their employees who can spend more with local service economies etc who don't export but gain from improved confidence. Win, win.
Or do you think we should have a 0% inflation target even at the cost of our trade?
No, the point I am making is that inflation generated from internal pressures that indicate the domestic economy is growing is good (up to about 2%, when the problems start). Inflation generated solely from a price shock because everything we need from overseas suddenly becomes more expensive isn't in the same ballpark, at all. Go look back at the 1970s......
For all our talk on here, the Torygraph seems to have forgotten the basics of how the British state works when they say that "Theresa May will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act". She can't do any such thing.
Neither Theresa May nor the government have the authority to trigger Article 50 either. Why? Because doing so would reverse a decision by Parliament, which can only be done by Parliament. Only Parliament can give them that authority. Even if the leader of this pearls-and-hairstyle cackheap of a government, with its clown as a Foreign Secretary - a government which probably won't last long - did send in an Article 50 letter, the Supreme Court would declare that her act of doing so was unlawful. And that, dear Leavers, is what counts. The Commission would have to swallow that and rip the letter up.
Quite some feat typing all that with one hand on the keyboard. What you have there is a big pile of steaming opinion, conjecture and supposition, a more erudite version of which is currently awaiting deliberation by the Supreme Court, where the august justices will decide if there is some merit in that argument, or if you are talking complete bollocks
Has this court case gone straight to the Supreme Court? Normally cases go to the High Court and then get appealed by the loser and so on.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
During the 19th Century inflation in the UK was persistently negative. It didn't seem to do our economic performance any harm.
People diagnose deflation as a disease, using Japan's sickness as its case zero. But Japan's problems were over-indebtedness and dreadful demographics. Deflation was an output, not the cause of its woes.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
During the 19th Century inflation in the UK was persistently negative. It didn't seem to do our economic performance any harm.
People diagnose deflation as a disease, using Japan's sickness as its case zero. But Japan's problems were over-indebtedness and dreadful demographics. Deflation was an output, not the cause of its woes.
Thankfully we're not facing the dangers of deflation with a lot of debt ourselves then ... oh wait ...
Improving inflation will improve our balance of trade
I'd be intrigued to see the empirical evidence of that.
In fact, I suspect that if you put long term inflation on one axis of a chart, and long term real export growth on another, you'd find a pretty clear negative correlation between developed nations.
For all our talk on here, the Torygraph seems to have forgotten the basics of how the British state works when they say that "Theresa May will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act". She can't do any such thing.
Neither Theresa May nor the government have the authority to trigger Article 50 either. Why? Because doing so would reverse a decision by Parliament, which can only be done by Parliament. Only Parliament can give them that authority. Even if the leader of this pearls-and-hairstyle cackheap of a government, with its clown as a Foreign Secretary - a government which probably won't last long - did send in an Article 50 letter, the Supreme Court would declare that her act of doing so was unlawful. And that, dear Leavers, is what counts. The Commission would have to swallow that and rip the letter up.
Quite some feat typing all that with one hand on the keyboard. What you have there is a big pile of steaming opinion, conjecture and supposition, a more erudite version of which is currently awaiting deliberation by the Supreme Court, where the august justices will decide if there is some merit in that argument, or if you are talking complete bollocks
Nonetheless, the UK went into the EC through an Act of Parliament. It was not done by executive order. Therefore, Britain can exit only by a similar Act.
I am not aware of any other Act which confers the PM with that authority. The Royal Prerogative applies in very special circumstances. You cannot argue that we have to leave the EU all of a sudden.
No it's not, inflation is low because in large part globally inflation is low. Even when we are growing at above 2% per annum inflation has been dangerously low.
Improving inflation will improve our balance of trade and improve growth as we export more. Companies which grow because of exports will pay their employees who can spend more with local service economies etc who don't export but gain from improved confidence. Win, win.
Or do you think we should have a 0% inflation target even at the cost of our trade?
No, the point I am making is that inflation generated from internal pressures that indicate the domestic economy is growing is good. Inflation generated solely from a price shock because everything we need from overseas suddenly becomes more expensive isn't in the same ballpark, at all. Go look back at the 1970s......
Inflation in the UK was over 5% already BEFORE the oil price shock and reached a peak of nearly 25% ... if that was the case in the UK then yes any further inflation would be terrible. Instead we are facing a modest rise from being too low and even worst case scenarios predict inflation remaining within target range.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
During the 19th Century inflation in the UK was persistently negative. It didn't seem to do our economic performance any harm.
People diagnose deflation as a disease, using Japan's sickness as its case zero. But Japan's problems were over-indebtedness and dreadful demographics. Deflation was an output, not the cause of its woes.
Well said sir.
Have you ever considered a career in finance and economic analysis?
More seriously, did you see the posts on alphaville (Izabella Kaminski) a couple of years back about the new normal being almost zero interest rates and low/no inflation?
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
During the 19th Century inflation in the UK was persistently negative. It didn't seem to do our economic performance any harm.
People diagnose deflation as a disease, using Japan's sickness as its case zero. But Japan's problems were over-indebtedness and dreadful demographics. Deflation was an output, not the cause of its woes.
Thankfully we're not facing the dangers of deflation with a lot of debt ourselves then ... oh wait ...
I don't think we should worry about it too much!
Personally, I think negative interest rates distort investment decisions, and would prefer we put a floor at (say) 1.5 or 2%. But I am unusual in that way.
Improving inflation will improve our balance of trade
I'd be intrigued to see the empirical evidence of that.
In fact, I suspect that if you put long term inflation on one axis of a chart, and long term real export growth on another, you'd find a pretty clear negative correlation between developed nations.
Taken out of context, I meant [a fall in sterling] improving inflation will improve our balance of trade. Obviously could have phrased it better but in the conversation I thought it was clear sorry.
As for your graph I suspect you would too but I didn't say higher inflation, I said improved inflation. By which I mean closer to target, if its too high then cutting inflation is improving it, if it's too low then a modest boost is improving it.
I for one am loving all the Leavers telling themselves this morning that the pound in their pockets or purses or banks have not been devalued.
Of course it's been devalued. The question debated is whether it's a good or bad thing.
Exports it is good. Inflation it is good. Inward tourism it is good. For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The most important negative you have missed - the increased cost of all imported goods. A country which relies on trade actually needs a relatively stable ER above all else. What worries me are those who keep saying it doesn't matter at any level so long as we have Brexit
I covered that in inflation. Currently inflation is dangerously low. Rising costs of imports will provide a modest boost to inflation which is a good thing.
During the 19th Century inflation in the UK was persistently negative. It didn't seem to do our economic performance any harm.
People diagnose deflation as a disease, using Japan's sickness as its case zero. But Japan's problems were over-indebtedness and dreadful demographics. Deflation was an output, not the cause of its woes.
Thankfully we're not facing the dangers of deflation with a lot of debt ourselves then ... oh wait ...
I don't think we should worry about it too much!
Personally, I think negative interest rates distort investment decisions, and would prefer we put a floor at (say) 1.5 or 2%. But I am unusual in that way.
I think in 10 years that is going to be recognised as the new doctrine. The current policy of ultra loose monetary policy is yielding no gain.
I was going to be pedantic and point this out ( I think there are about a dozen 'Grammar Schools' in Scotland) but they are non-selective so I thought I'd let it past.
The other major difference between Scotland and England of course is the lack of fee paying schools.
For all our talk on here, the Torygraph seems to have forgotten the basics of how the British state works when they say that "Theresa May will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act". She can't do any such thing.
Neither Theresa May nor the government have the authority to trigger Article 50 either. Why? Because doing so would reverse a decision by Parliament, which can only be done by Parliament. Only Parliament can give them that authority. Even if the leader of this pearls-and-hairstyle cackheap of a government, with its clown as a Foreign Secretary - a government which probably won't last long - did send in an Article 50 letter, the Supreme Court would declare that her act of doing so was unlawful. And that, dear Leavers, is what counts. The Commission would have to swallow that and rip the letter up.
Quite some feat typing all that with one hand on the keyboard. What you have there is a big pile of steaming opinion, conjecture and supposition, a more erudite version of which is currently awaiting deliberation by the Supreme Court, where the august justices will decide if there is some merit in that argument, or if you are talking complete bollocks
Nonetheless, the UK went into the EC through an Act of Parliament. It was not done by executive order. Therefore, Britain can exit only by a similar Act.
I am not aware of any other Act which confers the PM with that authority. The Royal Prerogative applies in very special circumstances. You cannot argue that we have to leave the EU all of a sudden.
An Act will go through Parliament to repeal the 72 Act that's already been said. Invoking Article 50 doesn't repeal the 72 Act.
It does lead to an interesting question as to what would happen if we left the EU via Article 50 and two years passing but didn't repeal the 72 Act? Presumably the ECJ and EU law would still have primacy (as conferred by the 72 Act) even though we were no longer members.
The biggest problem the government faces is to explain why its economic policy over the past six years has been to reduce the deficit but suddenly, now, the immense challenges we face from Brexit make this unnecessary.
Comments
Exports it is good.
Inflation it is good.
Inward tourism it is good.
For tourists going out it is bad.
As someone who has no foreign holidays planned in the foreseeable future I see it as good so far.
The Norway Campaign was pretty dreadful, too....
Down, you gorgeous, shameless pound, down, down, down.
Bottom line, people are free to donate their political careers to try and stop Brexit, it is legally permissable to try to stop it, to in fact ignore the referendum completely. That a minority of Remainers would indeed like to try that does not make it in any way likely, so every Brexiter should relax.
I still think the fall of Singapore was the biggest eff up in terms of military disasters, that along any losses to France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_Grammar_School
Andrew Neil most prominent Alum right now
Rinka the Dog
Reservoir Dogs II fails to win over critics. @MarcherLord1 https://t.co/2LpWrOGxu5
The other major difference between Scotland and England of course is the lack of fee paying schools.
We have gone from being 1.5% away from our inflation target to 1.4% away from target. Hopefully we will continue to get closer to target.
The country has not yet finished its descent to the bottom of this well.
I think we should just cut to the quick and expand Biggin hill by two grass runways and a build a new cinder track for vehicular access.
Sorted....
Scotland did use selective entry (until it was abolished)
And there are many fee paying schools in Scotland
It's a joke - most debates have no one challenging HMG, they're letting Tories push anything through. It's incredible and unworthy.
I hadn't heard much of his back story before, working in the '90s with the 'bastards' and for the Telegraph as a leader writer. Will be fascinating to see what he does after we finally give him the P45 he's craved for so long!
Next!
Then we had the spectacle of the Shadow Home Secretary being forced to support a policy on Identity Cards that he had publicly opposed.
They even wanted to throw more money at the public services than Gordon Brown, would you believe ?
One of their leaders kept trying to "turn up the volume" - it wasn't that nobody could hear him, nobody was listening but the party faithful kept standing up everytime he spoke like something out of a North Korean rally.
Happy days...
Edit to add: oops, I mean falling into 7th position...
The 25% expansion of medical school intake is long overdue, but probably needs to be at least another 25% to allow for demography. It should keep me occupied for the next few years at the Medical School.
And on the plus side it does mean that the Tories still plan to have a NHS in 2028....
I'd give Heathrow Hub the go ahead, and give Gatwick the go-ahead if they think they can make it work with Heathrow expanding also.
When inflation is too high everyone acknowledges a fall as a good thing. What's weird is we have so many economically illiterate people that they think a modest rise in inflation when it's too low is bad thing. Too low is as bad as too high.
Ha, hilarious
'That didn’t go over well with Trump backers who had stayed up through the night, thinking they’d be watching live the unveiling of the death blow to the Clinton campaign.'
Neither Theresa May nor the government have the authority to trigger Article 50 either. Why? Because doing so would reverse a decision by Parliament, which can only be done by Parliament. Only Parliament can give them that authority. Even if the leader of this pearls-and-hairstyle cackheap of a government, with its clown as a Foreign Secretary - a government which probably won't last long - did send in an Article 50 letter, the Supreme Court would declare that her act of doing so was unlawful. And that, dear Leavers, is what counts. The Commission would have to swallow that and rip the letter up.
LOL. Excellent troll.
But the BMG Research survey also found Remainers trust him least, suggesting many have not forgiven Mr Johnson for his role in leading the Out campaign.
The Foreign Secretary was backed by 38 per cent of Leave voters to ensure the most favourable Brexit agreement, followed by Brexit Secretary David Davis at 20 per cent and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox on 12 per cent.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-will-get-us-the-best-brexit-deal-say-leave-voters-a3360851.html
The British taxpayer is getting ripped off if it thinks training a Doctor costs £250 000 over 5 years.
It is possible to train in English speaking medical schools in Europe for as little as £5 000 per year, with no obligation to work anywhere. Even the Milan medical school costs about 20% of the quoted price in the UK.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-wanted-to-lose-brexit-vote-to-become-prime-minister-sir-alan-duncan-claims_uk_57e3e2a4e4b004d4d8623ee2
Improving inflation will improve our balance of trade and improve growth as we export more. Companies which grow because of exports will pay their employees who can spend more with local service economies etc who don't export but gain from improved confidence. Win, win.
Or do you think we should have a 0% inflation target even at the cost of our trade?
With each wriggling Remainer posting about how Parliament needs to do this (which delays or denies Brexit), the people did not mean a, b or c, it was so close that we must have the softest of Brexits, other EU countries are going to crucify us for having the temerity to say your federalism is not for us, I grow immensely proud of the general common sense and democratic impetus of the British people in voting Leave.
People diagnose deflation as a disease, using Japan's sickness as its case zero. But Japan's problems were over-indebtedness and dreadful demographics. Deflation was an output, not the cause of its woes.
In fact, I suspect that if you put long term inflation on one axis of a chart, and long term real export growth on another, you'd find a pretty clear negative correlation between developed nations.
Britain will be fastest growing G7 economy this year, says IMF
https://t.co/wn7g41wYFe
Feel that butt hurt
I am not aware of any other Act which confers the PM with that authority. The Royal Prerogative applies in very special circumstances. You cannot argue that we have to leave the EU all of a sudden.
Have you ever considered a career in finance and economic analysis?
More seriously, did you see the posts on alphaville (Izabella Kaminski) a couple of years back about the new normal being almost zero interest rates and low/no inflation?
Personally, I think negative interest rates distort investment decisions, and would prefer we put a floor at (say) 1.5 or 2%. But I am unusual in that way.
As for your graph I suspect you would too but I didn't say higher inflation, I said improved inflation. By which I mean closer to target, if its too high then cutting inflation is improving it, if it's too low then a modest boost is improving it.
It does lead to an interesting question as to what would happen if we left the EU via Article 50 and two years passing but didn't repeal the 72 Act? Presumably the ECJ and EU law would still have primacy (as conferred by the 72 Act) even though we were no longer members.