Carry on believing what suits you, Hillary lost. I could expend pixels listing her failings too.
Do you think he'll win in 2020, and if so, why?
Personally, I expect him to lose spectacularly. I wouldn't be overly surprised if he's not even nominated if he goes on reneging on campaign promises as he has this last fortnight.
What has he reneged on so far?
- Prosecuting Hillary - Paris Climate deal withdrawal - The Wall (or it not necessarily being a wall) - Repealing Obamacare
To name a few.
Golly, David - you're a very sophisticated chap and coming out with this?
1. His AG once apptd will decide on a Special Prosecutor - he can't do it as it's not been within POTUS powers since pre Watergate. You know that.
2. I haven't seen anything about Paris chatter wise - I get hundreds of US Trump tweets a day so clearly missed this somehow.
3. The Wall that.
4. The pre-existing conditions and kids up to 26yrs old were in the original GOP motions that never got a look in re the ACA given Obama did an Exec Order. Another none issue.
I'm genuinely surprised that you've suggested such nonsense.
1. I know that but it's what he pledged all the same. He didn't row back on it until elected. That counts as a promise in my book. Check the quote from the debate.
2. He said he'd withdraw; now he has an 'open mind' about it.
3. Drones and CCTV are not a wall. Again, revisit what he was saying in his rallies. He promised a wall (and that Mexico would pay - and no, he can't deliver on that too but then we both knew it at the time).
4. He said he'd repeal it; he's now looking to 'amend' it.
You can argue details about all these but as Rove said, once you're arguing details, you're losing; you can argue that the current policies are more sensible than the campaign pledges - I would - but they're broken promises all the same.
Also worth noting that since the election he has settled the Trump university case when previously he said it was groundless and that he would fight it all the way.
To be fair to him there (and it's better to be fair where one should be as the weaknesses are starker) that sort of thing is always said in litigation regardless of merits.
FPT in response to people saying the 'herd' (thought that word had gone) on PB are wrong.
Also worth pointing out that Betfair, the largest political betting markets in history were "wrong", as was the the popular vote in the US.
To claim PB was a wrong bubble is, in a word, wrong
The white supwemacist waycist won. Get over it.
Advice to live by, SO. We have a tough 8 years to come and the best way to deal with it is to stop fighting yesterday's battles.
I will call out race-baiters where I find them. That is not yesterday's battle. That is an ongoing one. The fact that you are one of the few righties on here who has forcefully criticised Trump for his embrace of white supremacists and anti-Semites is genuinely shocking to me. I made the mistake of believing that when Corbyn was quite correctly being given stick for his fondness for anti-Semites it was being done from a position of principle not partisanship. You live and learn, I guess.
Other people can speak for themselves. Personally, I feel pretty detached from the politics of a foreign country, whereas I don't feel so detached from politics in my own country. Corbyn is a threat to me and mine in a way that a foreign politician isn't. Unquestionably, Trump has said some awful things, but that's not going to alter the result.
Donald Trump is going to have much more affect on you and yours than Jeremy Corbyn ever will.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats align very well with my own political views.
I dislike the way Republicans engage in electoral shenanigans, pander to racists, are opposed to abortion in almost every circumstance, prioritise corporate welfare, and support creationism. I dislike the way Democrats champion illegal immigration, enforce political correctness, support affirmative action, and support abortion in almost every circumstance.
Don't think I recall agreeing with such a wide-ranging statement so completely before!
FPT in response to people saying the 'herd' (thought that word had gone) on PB are wrong.
Also worth pointing out that Betfair, the largest political betting markets in history were "wrong", as was the the popular vote in the US.
To claim PB was a wrong bubble is, in a word, wrong
The white supwemacist waycist won. Get over it.
Advice to live by, SO. We have a tough 8 years to come and the best way to deal with it is to stop fighting yesterday's battles.
I will call out race-baiters where I find them. That is not yesterday's battle. That is an ongoing one. The fact that you are one of the few righties on here who has forcefully criticised Trump for his embrace of white supremacists and anti-Semites is genuinely shocking to me. I made the mistake of believing that when Corbyn was quite correctly being given stick for his fondness for anti-Semites it was being done from a position of principle not partisanship. You live and learn, I guess.
Other people can speak for themselves. Personally, I feel pretty detached from the politics of a foreign country, whereas I don't feel so detached from politics in my own country. Corbyn is a threat to me and mine in a way that a foreign politician isn't. Unquestionably, Trump has said some awful things, but that's not going to alter the result.
Donald Trump is going to have much more affect on you and yours than Jeremy Corbyn ever will.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats align very well with my own political views.
I dislike the way Republicans engage in electoral shenanigans, pander to racists, are opposed to abortion in almost every circumstance, prioritise corporate welfare, and support creationism. I dislike the way Democrats champion illegal immigration, enforce political correctness, support affirmative action, and support abortion in almost every circumstance.
Don't think I recall agreeing with such a wide-ranging statement so completely before!
Ditto. There seems to be a large chasm between the two parties into which most Brits would probably fall into.
When something motivates you to speak up there are options for what you say: 1. Just say what you want to say, get it off your chest. Emote. 2. Think a bit about your audience, tailor your emoting a bit to them. 3. Think what actual outcomes or actions you wish to induce from your audience and tailor your words logically and precisely to optimise the chances that that is what you'll get. No emoting at all. But it may SEEM that way.
Lefties and Hillary C are always in box 1. You're a racist, Trump's douchebag, nobody decent can vote Trump, etc, etc. It feels awesome to emote. It's also electorally utterly counterproductive. The Deplorables simply hear 'you hate me too'. Hers was a 100% box 1 campaign.
Trump gives me every impression of living entirely in box 3. He's a zen master of trolling and chain-yanking. I think his 'gaffes' and tweets are very carefully thought through. The bien-pensant crowd misunderstimate him at their peril (to quote another one they misunderestimated!). Trump's was a 100% box 3 campaign
Glad you reposted that - I honestly can't understand how smart people here can't see it. It smacks me in the face everytime he does it.
Every tweet is designed to distract/dead cat/create a trap/troll/cause an emotional response.
And yet 90% of Leftists and NeverTrumpers fall straight into outrage/call him stupid.
Their entire reaction is predicated on their evidence free comfort blanket that a billionaire property developer/14 series reality star [how many last that long?]/non-politico killed off 16 professional rivals and now POTUS Elect ...is a nitwit.
Yeah, right. It's all some weird thing that's entirely unconnected with his talent for connecting with people/business nous over 70yrs. And they think they're smarter sat in the chairs of their cubicles - good grief.
He's clearly smart. He is also a crook, a sexual predator, a friend to white supremacists and anti-semites, a mocker of the disabled and a liar. In your world, that is not a problem. You like him for it. But other people don't. You are just going to have to accept that and live with it. Not everyone snuggles up to race-baiters.
Carry on believing what suits you, Hillary lost. I could expend pixels listing her failings too.
Do you think he'll win in 2020, and if so, why?
Personally, I expect him to lose spectacularly. I wouldn't be overly surprised if he's not even nominated if he goes on reneging on campaign promises as he has this last fortnight.
When something motivates you to speak up there are options for what you say: 1. Just say what you want to say, get it off your chest. Emote. 2. Think a bit about your audience, tailor your emoting a bit to them. 3. Think what actual outcomes or actions you wish to induce from your audience and tailor your words logically and precisely to optimise the chances that that is what you'll get. No emoting at all. But it may SEEM that way.
Lefties and Hillary C are always in box 1. You're a racist, Trump's douchebag, nobody decent can vote Trump, etc, etc. It feels awesome to emote. It's also electorally utterly counterproductive. The Deplorables simply hear 'you hate me too'. Hers was a 100% box 1 campaign.
Trump gives me every impression of living entirely in box 3. He's a zen master of trolling and chain-yanking. I think his 'gaffes' and tweets are very carefully thought through. The bien-pensant crowd misunderstimate him at their peril (to quote another one they misunderestimated!). Trump's was a 100% box 3 campaign
Glad you reposted that - I honestly can't understand how smart people here can't see it. It smacks me in the face everytime he does it.
Every tweet is designed to distract/dead cat/create a trap/troll/cause an emotional response.
And yet 90% of Leftists and NeverTrumpers fall straight into outrage/call him stupid.
Their entire reaction is predicated on their evidence free comfort blanket that a billionaire property developer/14 series reality star [how many last that long?]/non-politico killed off 16 professional rivals and now POTUS Elect ...is a nitwit.
Yeah, right. It's all some weird thing that's entirely unconnected with his talent for connecting with people/business nous over 70yrs. And they think they're smarter sat in the chairs of their cubicles - good grief.
He's clearly smart. He is also a crook, a sexual predator, a friend to white supremacists and anti-semites, a mocker of the disabled and a liar. In your world, that is not a problem. You like him for it. But other people don't. You are just going to have to accept that and live with it. Not everyone snuggles up to race-baiters.
Carry on believing what suits you, Hillary lost. I could expend pixels listing her failings too.
Do you think he'll win in 2020, and if so, why?
Personally, I expect him to lose spectacularly. I wouldn't be overly surprised if he's not even nominated if he goes on reneging on campaign promises as he has this last fortnight.
There are a lot of events between now and next May, but absent a big external shock, I just don't see the way she can move the FN score from 29-30% where it has been for three years up north of 40%.
She doesn't need to. She needs to move her personal score up which is a different matter.
Personally, I expect him to lose spectacularly. I wouldn't be overly surprised if he's not even nominated if he goes on reneging on campaign promises as he has this last fortnight.
What has he reneged on so far?
- Prosecuting Hillary - Paris Climate deal withdrawal - The Wall (or it not necessarily being a wall) - Repealing Obamacare
To name a few.
Golly, David - you're a very sophisticated chap and coming out with this?
1. His AG once apptd will decide on a Special Prosecutor - he can't do it as it's not been within POTUS powers since pre Watergate. You know that.
2. I haven't seen anything about Paris chatter wise - I get hundreds of US Trump tweets a day so clearly missed this somehow.
3. The Wall isn't about bricks like China or East Germany - it's what's appropriate for the terrain vs risk. So a 15ft fence or a solid barrier or drones/CCTV watching 500miles in the desert as required. No one but anti-Trump literalists thinks he's building a la Hadrian. We both know that.
4. The pre-existing conditions and kids up to 26yrs old were in the original GOP motions that never got a look in re the ACA given Obama did an Exec Order. Another none issue.
I'm genuinely surprised that you've suggested such nonsense.
1. I know that but it's what he pledged all the same. He didn't row back on it until elected. That counts as a promise in my book. Check the quote from the debate.
2. He said he'd withdraw; now he has an 'open mind' about it.
3. Drones and CCTV are not a wall. Again, revisit what he was saying in his rallies. He promised a wall (and that Mexico would pay - and no, he can't deliver on that too but then we both knew it at the time).
4. He said he'd repeal it; he's now looking to 'amend' it.
You can argue details about all these but as Rove said, once you're arguing details, you're losing; you can argue that the current policies are more sensible than the campaign pledges - I would - but they're broken promises all the same.
I think Obamacare is going to get repealed... Current republican planas I understand it is to repeal with a two year deadline and use those two years to come up with a replacement... Or not as the case may be.
Trump may realise the political implications of kicking 20+m off health insurance- but he can hardly veto a repeal bill. Hi supporters would surely notice that...
Saying amend as opposed to repeal is just flim flam. He means we will keep all the popular bits without the unpopular bits... But you need both obviously for it to work.
Hammond's borrowing another £122bn to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck, but could still squeeze out a few quid to try to bribe Sadiq into grubbing up the cycle superhighway. What a twat.
Hammond's borrowing another £122bn to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck, but could still squeeze out a few quid to try to bribe Sadiq into grubbing up the cycle superhighway. What a twat.
Consensus here, chancellor/OBR being overly cautious or front loading as much bad news as possible.
Truth be told, the future is so uncertain that the bands need to be really wide.
War in the Middle East, oil to $100, they're far too optimistic. US sucks in massive quantities of imports on the back of stimulus spending, tax cuts, they're too pessimistic. US smacks tariffs on Mexican and Chinese goods, big budget and current account deficits lead to substantially weaker dollar, too optimistic. etc. etc. etc.
We can come out Brexit much stronger. We can come out much weaker. So much is unknown.
Good to see the white supremacist assassin of Jo Cox get a life means life sentence. The bravery she showed that day was truly remarkable. I hope that at some stage knowing that she died a hero will give her family a degree of comfort.
Hear, hear.
I'm sure it does. I'm very glad he's got the sentence he deserves.
Consensus here, chancellor/OBR being overly cautious or front loading as much bad news as possible.
Truth be told, the future is so uncertain that the bands need to be really wide.
War in the Middle East, oil to $100, they're far too optimistic. US sucks in massive quantities of imports on the back of stimulus spending, tax cuts, they're too pessimistic. US smacks tariffs on Mexican and Chinese goods, big budget and current account deficits lead to substantially weaker dollar, too optimistic. etc. etc. etc.
We can come out Brexit much stronger. We can come out much weaker. So much is unknown.
Yes, a sub-10% chance of any recession in the next three years - which is effectively what the OBR is saying - seems pretty optimistic.
Consensus here, chancellor/OBR being overly cautious or front loading as much bad news as possible.
Truth be told, the future is so uncertain that the bands need to be really wide.
War in the Middle East, oil to $100, they're far too optimistic. US sucks in massive quantities of imports on the back of stimulus spending, tax cuts, they're too pessimistic. US smacks tariffs on Mexican and Chinese goods, big budget and current account deficits lead to substantially weaker dollar, too optimistic. etc. etc. etc.
We can come out Brexit much stronger. We can come out much weaker. So much is unknown.
Agreed. But purely on a numbers basis its hard to see how debt will rise to 90% when inflation is running at 2-3% and growth at 1-2%. The calculation doesn't hold water.
Hammond's borrowing another £122bn to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck, but could still squeeze out a few quid to try to bribe Sadiq into grubbing up the cycle superhighway. What a twat.
Alleged, perhaps, claimed. Is there a material verifiable fact there?
Said in a public meeting by an authoritative source. No denial from the Hamster.
Let's remember it was he who wanted to increase motorway speeds to 80 mph, with no regard to the concomitant increase in death and injury, and coined the lie "war on the motorist".
He's moving the budget from spring to autumn. Not cool, Phillip. Not cool at all.
If the tax year aligned with the calendar year as a follow-on to that, I'd be interested. That would be properly useful.
And given the reason that it's April 6th is due to the change of calendar (circa 1750) I think that it's fair to say that it's long overdue!
Sort of. IIRC, at one time, the official start of the year was on Lady Day (?) i.e. March 25, rather than Jan 1 (with the first months having the year, for example, "1687/8"). Presumably the tax year was already running on that cycle and April 6 is the continuation of that, adjusted for the change to the Gregorian calendar?
Watch this space, Mike? The only space Osborne is likely to take up is as a peer in the Lords. Unlike Churchill who had charisma in abundance, nobody is likely to hire a not very inspired former chancellor who's vision was always flat.
"OBR estimate that Brexit - as opposed to other changes & policy decisions - adds a cumulative £68bn to borrowing."
What touching faith you have in financial forecasts. I have a friend who'd like to interest you in a sure-fire investment. Guaranteed to make you a fortune. Please send all you bank details.
Seriously, could you acquaint me with a Government forecast in the Autumn statement or Budget that hasn't been amended within months, not years?
Consensus here, chancellor/OBR being overly cautious or front loading as much bad news as possible.
Truth be told, the future is so uncertain that the bands need to be really wide.
War in the Middle East, oil to $100, they're far too optimistic. US sucks in massive quantities of imports on the back of stimulus spending, tax cuts, they're too pessimistic. US smacks tariffs on Mexican and Chinese goods, big budget and current account deficits lead to substantially weaker dollar, too optimistic. etc. etc. etc.
We can come out Brexit much stronger. We can come out much weaker. So much is unknown.
Yes, a sub-10% chance of any recession in the next three years - which is effectively what the OBR is saying - seems pretty optimistic.
Their published figures don't price a recession in, which is why they don't add up. It feels like the debt figures are dependent on a recession but the GDP figures don't show one.
One thing that is, to my mind, glaringly missing from the OBR growth assumptions and the Chancellor's debt projections is the next recession. Sure, about 2% growth across the period is reasonable - right up until the now overdue downturn comes along. And then it's all for nought. So what's the point? Why can't the OBR and HMT recognise the reality of cycles in economics? We only ever seem to plan for sunny weather.
He's moving the budget from spring to autumn. Not cool, Phillip. Not cool at all.
If the tax year aligned with the calendar year as a follow-on to that, I'd be interested. That would be properly useful.
And given the reason that it's April 6th is due to the change of calendar (circa 1750) I think that it's fair to say that it's long overdue!
Sort of. IIRC, at one time, the official start of the year was on Lady Day (?) i.e. March 25, rather than Jan 1 (with the first months having the year, for example, "1687/8"). Presumably the tax year was already running on that cycle and April 6 is the continuation of that, adjusted for the change to the Gregorian calendar?
Yes, that is correct. It was supposed to have been adjusted to April 7 in 1900 to account for the "missed" leap year but was deemed too much effort.
There is a precedent for countries changing their tax year. Ireland used to be on a April-March year like us but changed in 2002 to Jan-Dec by having a "short" tax year in 2001.
Consensus here, chancellor/OBR being overly cautious or front loading as much bad news as possible.
Truth be told, the future is so uncertain that the bands need to be really wide.
War in the Middle East, oil to $100, they're far too optimistic. US sucks in massive quantities of imports on the back of stimulus spending, tax cuts, they're too pessimistic. US smacks tariffs on Mexican and Chinese goods, big budget and current account deficits lead to substantially weaker dollar, too optimistic. etc. etc. etc.
We can come out Brexit much stronger. We can come out much weaker. So much is unknown.
Agreed. But purely on a numbers basis its hard to see how debt will rise to 90% when inflation is running at 2-3% and growth at 1-2%. The calculation doesn't hold water.
Yes nominal growth of 4-5% means debt-to-GDP comes down quite nicely.
I'm basically a Tory, even if I am now a member of another party but I find May rather uninspiring. Hammond is not going to light any fires but he seems very competent.
But as a team, they would not be strong favourites to win any election they care to call by an absolute landslide were the opposition anything at all to write home about.
The poster tweets with Corbyn on them over the past few days must surely make anyone who isn't a paid up Tory who likes a one-party state cringe and bang head on desk?
Just popping in. My 45day guarantee from Travelex expires on Monday and I need a steer on GBP/USD. Will GBP rise or fall over the next six weeks? I know there's an upcoming Fed rate rise.
He's moving the budget from spring to autumn. Not cool, Phillip. Not cool at all.
If the tax year aligned with the calendar year as a follow-on to that, I'd be interested. That would be properly useful.
And given the reason that it's April 6th is due to the change of calendar (circa 1750) I think that it's fair to say that it's long overdue!
Sort of. IIRC, at one time, the official start of the year was on Lady Day (?) i.e. March 25, rather than Jan 1 (with the first months having the year, for example, "1687/8"). Presumably the tax year was already running on that cycle and April 6 is the continuation of that, adjusted for the change to the Gregorian calendar?
Think it is. The City I believe objected to having to pay tax 11 days early (as 11 days had "vanished" from the previous September) so March 25th (Old New Year's Day so to speak) became March 25th plus 11 equals April 5th, leaving April 6th as first day of the new new tax year. Hasn't moved since.
One thing that is, to my mind, glaringly missing from the OBR growth assumptions and the Chancellor's debt projections is the next recession. Sure, about 2% growth across the period is reasonable - right up until the now overdue downturn comes along. And then it's all for nought. So what's the point? Why can't the OBR and HMT recognise the reality of cycles in economics? We only ever seem to plan for sunny weather.
Show me an economist who forecast the last recession (apart from Capital Economics). Economists live in a world where cycles do not exist. Rather like Climate Scientists
There are a lot of events between now and next May, but absent a big external shock, I just don't see the way she can move the FN score from 29-30% where it has been for three years up north of 40%.
She doesn't need to. She needs to move her personal score up which is a different matter.
The FN, in polls, scores the same as MLP.
And how does MLP's past record in Presidential elections compare with that? She doesn't have one so there's a big unknown in that assumption.
In the regional elections she more than doubled her first round personal vote from 18% to 41% between 2010 and 2015 and outperformed the party as a whole.
Just popping in. My 45day guarantee from Travelex expires on Monday and I need a steer on GBP/USD. Will GBP rise or fall over the next six weeks? I know there's an upcoming Fed rate rise.
It will probably rise or fall. But it might stay the same.
Great news that parasite lettings agents will be banned from levying spurious fees from their tenants.
Otherwise, the government appears to be in a Brexit hole of its own making, and we were today told that they are buying a new spade.
Additionally parasite landlords won't be able to pass on any additional costs if Scotland is anything to go by where rents haven't gone up despite banning fees already.
Just popping in. My 45day guarantee from Travelex expires on Monday and I need a steer on GBP/USD. Will GBP rise or fall over the next six weeks? I know there's an upcoming Fed rate rise.
It will probably rise or fall. But it might stay the same.
Just popping in. My 45day guarantee from Travelex expires on Monday and I need a steer on GBP/USD. Will GBP rise or fall over the next six weeks? I know there's an upcoming Fed rate rise.
It will probably rise or fall. But it might stay the same.
Wow - what in Hammond's statement pissed him off that much?
Isn't "he" a "she"?
Though oddly I read something about the President's office having bought lots of "little blue pills" to "treat altitude sickness". Good stiff drink was the old remedy.
Great news that parasite lettings agents will be banned from levying spurious fees from their tenants.
Otherwise, the government appears to be in a Brexit hole of its own making, and we were today told that they are buying a new spade.
Additionally parasite landlords won't be able to pass on any additional costs if Scotland is anything to go by where rents haven't gone up despite banning fees already.
Indeed, it's an excellent move. The credit checks and guarantors are to protect the landlord so perfectly logical they should pay. And even if it pushes rents a little higher it still improves cash flow for tenants, who by definition don't have much capital (otherwise they'd presumably buy)
There are a lot of events between now and next May, but absent a big external shock, I just don't see the way she can move the FN score from 29-30% where it has been for three years up north of 40%.
She doesn't need to. She needs to move her personal score up which is a different matter.
The FN, in polls, scores the same as MLP.
And how does MLP's past record in Presidential elections compare with that? She doesn't have one so there's a big unknown in that assumption.
In the regional elections she more than doubled her first round personal vote from 18% to 41% between 2010 and 2015 and outperformed the party as a whole.
But that merely emphasises that that is her home region, where her personal vote is strong.
I guess there is a small, but by no means impossible, scenario where MLP ends up President but with minimal support in the French Parliament. The Senate, with its indirect electoral system, is likely to elect zero Front National Senators. The National Assembly, similarly, could end up with the FN having just a handful of seats.
Given Parliament is able call a vote of No Confidence and bring down the ministers appointed by the President, this would severely diminish MLP's powers, were she to get elected.
Given Parliament is able call a vote of No Confidence and bring down the ministers appointed by the President, this would severely diminish MLP's powers, were she to get elected.
Which is perhaps a reason why her chances of being elected may be greater than assumed. The people know they are not electing a dictator.
Just popping in. My 45day guarantee from Travelex expires on Monday and I need a steer on GBP/USD. Will GBP rise or fall over the next six weeks? I know there's an upcoming Fed rate rise.
It will probably rise or fall. But it might stay the same.
Thank you times x, where "x" is a multiplier appropriate to the utility of the advice
Consensus here, chancellor/OBR being overly cautious or front loading as much bad news as possible.
Truth be told, the future is so uncertain that the bands need to be really wide.
War in the Middle East, oil to $100, they're far too optimistic. US sucks in massive quantities of imports on the back of stimulus spending, tax cuts, they're too pessimistic. US smacks tariffs on Mexican and Chinese goods, big budget and current account deficits lead to substantially weaker dollar, too optimistic. etc. etc. etc.
We can come out Brexit much stronger. We can come out much weaker. So much is unknown.
Yes, a sub-10% chance of any recession in the next three years - which is effectively what the OBR is saying - seems pretty optimistic.
Their published figures don't price a recession in, which is why they don't add up. It feels like the debt figures are dependent on a recession but the GDP figures don't show one.
I suppose budgeting for a recession but not forecasting it is a reasonable policy as you don't know when it will come (but it will eventually). There's a danger of a self fulfilling policy if you forecast one you make it happen.
"OBR estimate that Brexit - as opposed to other changes & policy decisions - adds a cumulative £68bn to borrowing."
What touching faith you have in financial forecasts. I have a friend who'd like to interest you in a sure-fire investment. Guaranteed to make you a fortune. Please send all you bank details.
Seriously, could you acquaint me with a Government forecast in the Autumn statement or Budget that hasn't been amended within months, not years?
Yep. Government optimistically forecasts a deficit of X and it turns out to be X PLUS Y. How often is that forecast unduly PESSIMISTIC and it turns out to be X MINUS Y?
"OBR estimate that Brexit - as opposed to other changes & policy decisions - adds a cumulative £68bn to borrowing."
What touching faith you have in financial forecasts. I have a friend who'd like to interest you in a sure-fire investment. Guaranteed to make you a fortune. Please send all you bank details.
Seriously, could you acquaint me with a Government forecast in the Autumn statement or Budget that hasn't been amended within months, not years?
Yep. Government optimistically forecasts a deficit of X and it turns out to be X PLUS Y. How often is that forecast unduly PESSIMISTIC and it turns out to be X MINUS Y?
Yes, it's an exercise in "the government are awesome" for the run up to 2020. That 90% debt figure is, IMO, going to feature especially if, as I suspect, net debt reaches about 75% by the end of 2019. Due to the government's policies and a good Brexit deal we've managed to avert disaster, vote for us.
That's actually a tribute to George Osborne's stewardship of the economy, and plus we actually haven't Brexited
Shh... Don't tell anyone. The secret to walking back on Brexit is to pretend it's already been a huge success and now we're getting on with everything else.
"OBR estimate that Brexit - as opposed to other changes & policy decisions - adds a cumulative £68bn to borrowing."
What touching faith you have in financial forecasts. I have a friend who'd like to interest you in a sure-fire investment. Guaranteed to make you a fortune. Please send all you bank details.
Seriously, could you acquaint me with a Government forecast in the Autumn statement or Budget that hasn't been amended within months, not years?
Yep. Government optimistically forecasts a deficit of X and it turns out to be X PLUS Y. How often is that forecast unduly PESSIMISTIC and it turns out to be X MINUS Y?
Yes, it's an exercise in "the government are awesome" for the run up to 2020. That 90% debt figure is, IMO, going to feature especially if, as I suspect, net debt reaches about 75% by the end of 2019. Due to the government's policies and a good Brexit deal we've managed to avert disaster, vote for us.
75% is a bit optimstic for three years away.
We're at (what) 88% now. If we assume an average deficit of 2% of GDP, then we get to add 6% to 94%. But then we have to divide by 1.045 three times to simulate 4.5% nominal GDP growth. So, 82% at end of 2019.
Meh. Sterling was far worse than this against the euro in 2008-2009. It goes up, it goes down. And it's doing precisely what it should do as a macroeconomic shock-absorber. We all knew there'd be a hit from the vote.
As a price for independence and freedom, it's a small price to pay.
"OBR estimate that Brexit - as opposed to other changes & policy decisions - adds a cumulative £68bn to borrowing."
What touching faith you have in financial forecasts. I have a friend who'd like to interest you in a sure-fire investment. Guaranteed to make you a fortune. Please send all you bank details.
Seriously, could you acquaint me with a Government forecast in the Autumn statement or Budget that hasn't been amended within months, not years?
Yep. Government optimistically forecasts a deficit of X and it turns out to be X PLUS Y. How often is that forecast unduly PESSIMISTIC and it turns out to be X MINUS Y?
Yes, it's an exercise in "the government are awesome" for the run up to 2020. That 90% debt figure is, IMO, going to feature especially if, as I suspect, net debt reaches about 75% by the end of 2019. Due to the government's policies and a good Brexit deal we've managed to avert disaster, vote for us.
75% is a bit optimstic for three years away.
We're at (what) 88% now. If we assume an average deficit of 2% of GDP, then we get to add 6% to 94%. But then we have to divide by 1.045 three times to simulate 4.5% nominal GDP growth. So, 82% at end of 2019.
Meh. Sterling was far worse than this against the euro in 2008-2009. It goes up, it goes down. And it's doing precisely what it should do as a macroeconomic shock-absorber. We all knew there'd be a hit from the vote.
As a price for independence and freedom, it's a small price to pay.
You can put that on the bus too.
"BREXIT. IT WILL COST YOU A GRAND EACH. BUT IT'S ONLY MONEY, YEAH?"
Also, leaving the EU (if we do) alters our long term position. If, over a century, the situation is better than remaining then taking a short term hit for long term advantage makes perfect sense. A man saving for his first house deposit will not have as many nights out as a man frittering his cash away. But in 30 years' time, only one of them will have a house.
What part of "immediate and profound shock" don't you understand?
Based on "immediate" triggering of Article 50, which you may have noticed hasn't happened yet.
And which part of £60bn is not profound or shocking?
For you, it's the fact it's not even higher so you have to make hay with that.
The triple-lock, NHS ringfence, international aid are all far bigger liabilities in the long-term. Interesting, all of which Hammond said he'd review by the end of the parliament.
Comments
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/segregated-cycle-path-should-be-ripped-up-chancellor-tells-london-mayor-301330
War in the Middle East, oil to $100, they're far too optimistic.
US sucks in massive quantities of imports on the back of stimulus spending, tax cuts, they're too pessimistic.
US smacks tariffs on Mexican and Chinese goods, big budget and current account deficits lead to substantially weaker dollar, too optimistic.
etc. etc. etc.
We can come out Brexit much stronger. We can come out much weaker. So much is unknown.
I am very impressed.
Let's remember it was he who wanted to increase motorway speeds to 80 mph, with no regard to the concomitant increase in death and injury, and coined the lie "war on the motorist".
True but they are also assuming that when the economy grows is does so pretty slowly.
"OBR estimate that Brexit - as opposed to other changes & policy decisions - adds a cumulative £68bn to borrowing."
What touching faith you have in financial forecasts. I have a friend who'd like to interest you in a sure-fire investment. Guaranteed to make you a fortune. Please send all you bank details.
Seriously, could you acquaint me with a Government forecast in the Autumn statement or Budget that hasn't been amended within months, not years?
I didn't get it wrong...
[smug mode off]
http://tinyurl.com/hplj45x
There is a precedent for countries changing their tax year. Ireland used to be on a April-March year like us but changed in 2002 to Jan-Dec by having a "short" tax year in 2001.
But as a team, they would not be strong favourites to win any election they care to call by an absolute landslide were the opposition anything at all to write home about.
The poster tweets with Corbyn on them over the past few days must surely make anyone who isn't a paid up Tory who likes a one-party state cringe and bang head on desk?
Otherwise, the government appears to be in a Brexit hole of its own making, and we were today told that they are buying a new spade.
Economists live in a world where cycles do not exist.
Rather like Climate Scientists
In the regional elections she more than doubled her first round personal vote from 18% to 41% between 2010 and 2015 and outperformed the party as a whole.
Though oddly I read something about the President's office having bought lots of "little blue pills" to "treat altitude sickness". Good stiff drink was the old remedy.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/801437044912300032
I guess there is a small, but by no means impossible, scenario where MLP ends up President but with minimal support in the French Parliament. The Senate, with its indirect electoral system, is likely to elect zero Front National Senators. The National Assembly, similarly, could end up with the FN having just a handful of seats.
Given Parliament is able call a vote of No Confidence and bring down the ministers appointed by the President, this would severely diminish MLP's powers, were she to get elected.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/801438477745324032
So if we can hold sterling weakness a touch longer I'd be grateful.
Spurs have Thursday night football to look forward to again.
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/801432800448614400
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/801405766402011136
* With the exception of my GBP/USD call.
Lets save that one for later.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/799191249295208448
Sounds like much ado about nothing.
We're at (what) 88% now. If we assume an average deficit of 2% of GDP, then we get to add 6% to 94%. But then we have to divide by 1.045 three times to simulate 4.5% nominal GDP growth. So, 82% at end of 2019.
As a price for independence and freedom, it's a small price to pay.
It's hilarious how Remainers keep trying to troll Leavers with this, as if each and every one actually gives a shit.
https://twitter.com/biggixer/status/798830694277332992
And which part of £60bn is not profound or shocking?
It's hilarious how Leavers keep trying to troll Remainers with this, as if each and every one actually gives a shit.
But I'm astonished a Thatcherite doesn't find a near £60 billion increase in the deficit neither profound or shocking.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
Take Back Control!
And you were a Brexiter right up until 10 days before the vote.
I remember.
"BREXIT. IT WILL COST YOU A GRAND EACH. BUT IT'S ONLY MONEY, YEAH?"
And... it has no virtually effect on the growth figures through to 2021.
We all did.
Also, leaving the EU (if we do) alters our long term position. If, over a century, the situation is better than remaining then taking a short term hit for long term advantage makes perfect sense. A man saving for his first house deposit will not have as many nights out as a man frittering his cash away. But in 30 years' time, only one of them will have a house.
The triple-lock, NHS ringfence, international aid are all far bigger liabilities in the long-term. Interesting, all of which Hammond said he'd review by the end of the parliament.
And rightly so.