Having thought about SeanT's question overnight, here is my answer:
I'd vote LePen or Farage.
But the question is, in reality, neither hard nor deep. In fact, boiled down, it is trite.
Let's make it extreme. If forced on pain of death to make a binary choice, would I vote for Hitler or the Taliban? Hitler, of course.
Why? Assuming their facism is equally extreme and unacceptable, they are both bad to the infinity. But at least Hitler's facism is based on a Western Culture and a culture of science and learning, however those are bastardized. The Taliban is based on a culture that is almost entirely alien to me.
So the question boils down to 'which is the greater bad? 'Bad to the infinity', or 'Bad to the infinity plus x'
There may be almost no practical difference between the two outcomes, but at least in theory it is clear which is the worst option.
On Topic. Herdsons analysis is as thin & superficial as usual. He still doesnt get Corbyn. The chances of an Election are slim _ why would Labour backbenchers vote for Redundancy in 2017 rather than 2020 ? May will see Local Elections where The Libdems make substantial gains while UKIP make very heavy losses - even The BBC will find it hard to ignore that.
And your evidence for this is... ?
I suspect Paul is right that the LDs will make gains. If you look at the 2016 local election results, they were against the 2012 locals (which was the high point of the LDs last parliament). If they made gains in 2016, then I would be very surprised if they didn't make some gains in 2017, simply because they are against easier comparisons. That being said, I doubt they'll make big gains. In the 2013 locals, the LDs - despite a plummeting vote share - held three quarters of the seats they were defending. I'd reckon 25-50 gains for them would be par.
UKIP is a harder call. I think they struggle organisationally, and they lack a coherent message about what you are voting for in a local election. In 2013, when these councils were last elected, UKIP got 22% of the vote. (Which is mid to high teens, NEV.) I think they'll struggle to get that again. UKIP got 147 seats last time around. I suspect they'll be sub 100 in 2017.
Quite. 25-50 gains would be a novel definition for substantial as a proportion of 2,051.
How the Kippers do will probably be a function of how BrExit looks in May. If the government lose in the SC, and are having all sorts of fun and games in parliament trying to pass an Article 50 act, the Tories could be in for a kicking in Leave areas as voters trying and put a bit of backbone into the government, and fire a warning shot across MPs not following the script. If the government wins the SC, or their bill waltzes through parliament without a hitch, and as a result they look like they are in control of the program, they might get off much more lightly.
On Topic. Herdsons analysis is as thin & superficial as usual. He still doesnt get Corbyn. The chances of an Election are slim _ why would Labour backbenchers vote for Redundancy in 2017 rather than 2020 ? May will see Local Elections where The Libdems make substantial gains while UKIP make very heavy losses - even The BBC will find it hard to ignore that.
Thanks for your considered and detailed criticism.
Labour backbenchers would vote for an election because:
1. Most of them won't be made redundant. Most would be re-elected. 2. It avoids deselection battles. 3. It avoids the new boundaries coming in. 4. It will be the best bet of both dumping Corbyn and keeping the left off the next ballotpaper. 5. They will have been told to. Voting against a dissolution motion - in effect keeping a Tory govt in place might be enough for the NEC to refuse nominations. 6. There's a non-zero chance that an election could deprive the Tories of a majority.
Who to listen to on the threat of Islamism...Dr Fox or Maajid Nawaz...hmmmm...
Unfortunately Dr Fox hold views very similar to many of our elected leaders, the hope that doing nothing much except wringing our hands and believing people will come to their senses because we are nice to them, and believing the in good faith of people that are sworn to destroy us. It might work I suppose...
Except that is not what I have argued! Indeed I have advocated containment, intelligence led penetration of networks and encouraging Muslim female emancipification. In other words peaceful containment and encouragement of internal modernisation.
On Topic. Herdsons analysis is as thin & superficial as usual. He still doesnt get Corbyn. The chances of an Election are slim _ why would Labour backbenchers vote for Redundancy in 2017 rather than 2020 ? May will see Local Elections where The Libdems make substantial gains while UKIP make very heavy losses - even The BBC will find it hard to ignore that.
On the local elections, I agree with rcs. The Lib Dems will probably make a small advance and UKIP will lose seats.
Whether the BBC ignore either or both stories will depend on whether Labour lose seats. If so, the narrative will be all about Corbyn.
After the weekend, the BBC will still continue to ignore the Lib Dems because they'll still only have 9 MPs and no-one in the London media gives a toss about local government.
"Would you rather be kicked in the face or the groin?"
The groin.
See, its possible to give an answer. Some times there are no good alternatives, sometimes all alternatives are fatal. Some times you just get to choose what you stand for and how you die. Strangely lots of people dont want others to know what they stand for in extremis.
Yes, but I doubt a kick in the groin is really your preferred answer.
How does answering either of the forced-choice alternatives equal knowing what they stand for in extremis?
In fact, it's exactly the opposite: it's capitulation. Unless, of course, the answer is really what they stand for.
On Topic. Herdsons analysis is as thin & superficial as usual. He still doesnt get Corbyn. The chances of an Election are slim _ why would Labour backbenchers vote for Redundancy in 2017 rather than 2020 ? May will see Local Elections where The Libdems make substantial gains while UKIP make very heavy losses - even The BBC will find it hard to ignore that.
Thanks for your considered and detailed criticism.
Labour backbenchers would vote for an election because:
1. Most of them won't be made redundant. Most would be re-elected. 2. It avoids deselection battles. 3. It avoids the new boundaries coming in. 4. It will be the best bet of both dumping Corbyn and keeping the left off the next ballotpaper. 5. They will have been told to. Voting against a dissolution motion - in effect keeping a Tory govt in place might be enough for the NEC to refuse nominations. 6. There's a non-zero chance that an election could deprive the Tories of a majority.
Having thought about SeanT's question overnight, here is my answer:
I'd vote LePen or Farage.
But the question is, in reality, neither hard nor deep. In fact, boiled down, it is trite.
Let's make it extreme. If forced on pain of death to make a binary choice, would I vote for Hitler or the Taliban? Hitler, of course.
Why? Assuming their facism is equally extreme and unacceptable, they are both bad to the infinity. But at least Hitler's facism is based on a Western Culture and a culture of science and learning, however those are bastardized. The Taliban is based on a culture that is almost entirely alien to me.
So the question boils down to 'which is the greater bad? 'Bad to the infinity', or 'Bad to the infinity plus x'
There may be almost no practical difference between the two outcomes, but at least in theory it is clear which is the worst option.
What if they're not equally extreme? Hitler or modern-day Iran?
(As an aside, infinity plus x is the same as infinity).
And I would suggest that our current spooks do exactly the same (and probably are).
Hardly advocating doing nothing...
Scappaticci was that classic, the second double agent who is there to check that the first is behaving himself.
Incidentally, it is a commonplace in the Muslim community that the Jihadi types are riddled with informers, and that wannabes are being deliberately allowed to go abroad so they are easier to kill.
Having thought about SeanT's question overnight, here is my answer:
I'd vote LePen or Farage.
But the question is, in reality, neither hard nor deep. In fact, boiled down, it is trite.
Let's make it extreme. If forced on pain of death to make a binary choice, would I vote for Hitler or the Taliban? Hitler, of course.
Why? Assuming their facism is equally extreme and unacceptable, they are both bad to the infinity. But at least Hitler's facism is based on a Western Culture and a culture of science and learning, however those are bastardized. The Taliban is based on a culture that is almost entirely alien to me.
So the question boils down to 'which is the greater bad? 'Bad to the infinity', or 'Bad to the infinity plus x'
There may be almost no practical difference between the two outcomes, but at least in theory it is clear which is the worst option.
What if they're not equally extreme? Hitler or modern-day Iran?
(As an aside, infinity plus x is the same as infinity).
TBH, I find 98% of Hitler comparisons lazy, trite and frequently silly - he's off the charts along with Stalin and Mao - they just used different methods of death.
Perhaps those inclined to reach reflexively for Adolf could try Uncle Joe instead just for novelty - or a Little Red Book.
I've just looked at today's Times, and it's getting more leftist than ever.
I feel I'm reading BBC news for 80% of it. It simply isn't what it was even a year ago. I find myself looking for a story that isn't negative about conservative views.
I can ignore if be disappointed by the massive Remain angles - and even Trump hating - but ordinary news reads more like the Guardian than the Times of 2015
I've just looked at today's Times, and it's getting more leftist than ever.
I feel I'm reading BBC news for 80% of it. It simply isn't what it was even a year ago. I find myself looking for a story that isn't negative about conservative views.
I can ignore if be disappointed by the massive Remain angles - and even Trump hating - but ordinary news reads more like the Guardian than the Times of 2015
I've just looked at today's Times, and it's getting more leftist than ever.
I feel I'm reading BBC news for 80% of it. It simply isn't what it was even a year ago. I find myself looking for a story that isn't negative about conservative views.
I can ignore if be disappointed by the massive Remain angles - and even Trump hating - but ordinary news reads more like the Guardian than the Times of 2015
There are two explanations for this observation.
That my political antennae that's predicted what most PBers didn't is wrong - or you're trying to imply something uncomplimentary?
Having thought about SeanT's question overnight, here is my answer:
I'd vote LePen or Farage.
But the question is, in reality, neither hard nor deep. In fact, boiled down, it is trite.
Let's make it extreme. If forced on pain of death to make a binary choice, would I vote for Hitler or the Taliban? Hitler, of course.
Why? Assuming their facism is equally extreme and unacceptable, they are both bad to the infinity. But at least Hitler's facism is based on a Western Culture and a culture of science and learning, however those are bastardized. The Taliban is based on a culture that is almost entirely alien to me.
So the question boils down to 'which is the greater bad? 'Bad to the infinity', or 'Bad to the infinity plus x'
There may be almost no practical difference between the two outcomes, but at least in theory it is clear which is the worst option.
What if they're not equally extreme? Hitler or modern-day Iran?
(As an aside, infinity plus x is the same as infinity).
TBH, I find 98% of Hitler comparisons lazy, trite and frequently silly - he's off the charts along with Stalin and Mao - they just used different methods of death.
Perhaps those inclined to reach reflexively for Adolf could try Uncle Joe instead just for novelty - or a Little Red Book.
In the context of the discussion, it's entirely appropriate (though I agree that the general tendency to run to Hitler for examples is too great). MTimT made the comment about being forced to choose between an extreme fascism and an extreme Islamism (presumably this would be in some kind of civil war; there'd be no such choice at the ballot box) - note that he chose Hitler. But given that he did, the question then becomes, as Seant put earlier, *how* extreme would a fascist option have to become before any form of islamic goverment becomes preferable?
Ann Coulter Russian diplomats were given 72 hours to leave country. Maybe we can get them to take all those celebrities who promised to leave with them.
' Labour backbenchers would vote for an election because:
1. Most of them won't be made redundant. Most would be re-elected. 2. It avoids deselection battles. 3. It avoids the new boundaries coming in. 4. It will be the best bet of both dumping Corbyn and keeping the left off the next ballotpaper. 5. They will have been told to. Voting against a dissolution motion - in effect keeping a Tory govt in place might be enough for the NEC to refuse nominations. 6. There's a non-zero chance that an election could deprive the Tories of a majority.'
I don't disagree really, though unless the polls begin to mirror the most recent Opinium poll I would expect Corbyn to be pressured into finding a reason for changing his mind!. Labour backbenchers would also only need to sit on their hands to thwart an early election.
I've just looked at today's Times, and it's getting more leftist than ever.
I feel I'm reading BBC news for 80% of it. It simply isn't what it was even a year ago. I find myself looking for a story that isn't negative about conservative views.
I can ignore if be disappointed by the massive Remain angles - and even Trump hating - but ordinary news reads more like the Guardian than the Times of 2015
There are two explanations for this observation.
Plato is a modern day Mary Whitehouse, constantly outraged by things that she never reads... in this case the MSM.
As the newspaper of record of the liberal metropolitan elite - and the long-time advocate of Cameron-style Toryism - surely the Times is giving its readership what it wants - just as the Telegraph does on the other side of the equation.
I've just looked at today's Times, and it's getting more leftist than ever.
I feel I'm reading BBC news for 80% of it. It simply isn't what it was even a year ago. I find myself looking for a story that isn't negative about conservative views.
I can ignore if be disappointed by the massive Remain angles - and even Trump hating - but ordinary news reads more like the Guardian than the Times of 2015
There are two explanations for this observation.
That my political antennae that's predicted what most PBers didn't is wrong - or you're trying to imply something uncomplimentary?
Neither of those. Either the Times has moved or you have moved. It's probably a bit of both.
You performed a service to PB by providing all those links to the false news sites in the US election. I suspect most of us were exasperated by them because we could see they were mainly false.
What we didn't realise was how effective they were (or perhaps they weren't and it was the Russians wot won it for Trump, or the combination of the two).
What I don't know was whether you believed them ( and therefore favoured Trump) or disbelieved them but nevertheless thought they were effective enough to give Trump the victory. In either case, well done.
Having thought about SeanT's question overnight, here is my answer:
I'd vote LePen or Farage.
But the question is, in reality, neither hard nor deep. In fact, boiled down, it is trite.
Let's make it extreme. If forced on pain of death to make a binary choice, would I vote for Hitler or the Taliban? Hitler, of course.
Why? Assuming their facism is equally extreme and unacceptable, they are both bad to the infinity. But at least Hitler's facism is based on a Western Culture and a culture of science and learning, however those are bastardized. The Taliban is based on a culture that is almost entirely alien to me.
So the question boils down to 'which is the greater bad? 'Bad to the infinity', or 'Bad to the infinity plus x'
There may be almost no practical difference between the two outcomes, but at least in theory it is clear which is the worst option.
SeanT's question is not as hypothetical as he made out. In Europe in recent memory people had to make very similar choices - in Central Europe during WW2. See Timothy Snyder's excellent, if very harrowing, book "Bloodlands" for descriptions of why different groups made the choices they did. Those in the Ukraine who chose the Germans over Russia have been criticised. But given what Communist Russia did to Ukraine before the Germans came along, why wouldn't you choose something which, while bad, was - you hoped - not as bad as what you had already experienced? Soviet Russia was hardly the moral choice after all.
I could never choose sharia and Islamism. My rights and those of my daughter would be severely constrained and one of my sons would likely be killed. Islamism seems to me to be fascism in a religious garb. So - if forced to choose- it would have to be Farage. But I would do everything in my power to avoid my country being faced with such an unpalatable choice.
And if Britain really did end up in a place where we had only a choice of types of fascism, I would likely leave since it would not be a country I recognise nor the country I love.
I mentioned this Netflix release FPT - had no idea what it was - and then watched 10hrs straight overnight.
Here's the French trailer to minimise spoilers - its actually almost all in spoken English. Think Dexter/Sopranos/Breaking Bad for tone. I'm going to watch it again.
“It has propelled my book to the top of the charts and they only have themselves to blame for this, these people never ever learn. So as ever I say thank you to the hysterical progressive left for doing better marketing than we could ever afford to buy for ourselves,” he claimed.
Having thought about SeanT's question overnight, here is my answer:
I'd vote LePen or Farage.
But the question is, in reality, neither hard nor deep. In fact, boiled down, it is trite.
Let's make it extreme. If forced on pain of death to make a binary choice, would I vote for Hitler or the Taliban? Hitler, of course.
Why? Assuming their facism is equally extreme and unacceptable, they are both bad to the infinity. But at least Hitler's facism is based on a Western Culture and a culture of science and learning, however those are bastardized. The Taliban is based on a culture that is almost entirely alien to me.
So the question boils down to 'which is the greater bad? 'Bad to the infinity', or 'Bad to the infinity plus x'
There may be almost no practical difference between the two outcomes, but at least in theory it is clear which is the worst option.
SeanT's question is not as hypothetical as he made out. In Europe in recent memory people had to make very similar choices - in Central Europe during WW2. See Timothy Snyder's excellent, if very harrowing, book "Bloodlands" for descriptions of why different groups made the choices they did. Those in the Ukraine who chose the Germans over Russia have been criticised. But given what Communist Russia did to Ukraine before the Germans came along, why wouldn't you choose something which, while bad, was - you hoped - not as bad as what you had already experienced? Soviet Russia was hardly the moral choice after all.
I could never choose sharia and Islamism. My rights and those of my daughter would be severely constrained and one of my sons would likely be killed. Islamism seems to me to be fascism in a religious garb. So - if forced to choose- it would have to be Farage. But I would do everything in my power to avoid my country being faced with such an unpalatable choice.
And if Britain really did end up in a place where we had only a choice of types of fascism, I would likely leave since it would not be a country I recognise nor the country I love.
A great book. I'd recommend his even more harrowing Black Earth, and particularly the chapter near the end on the few who had the moral and physical courage not to make the devil's choice, and retain their humanity.
@SeanT “thanks to everyone who had the cullions to answer the question, and Boo! to everyone who ducked it…” That you can tell people who were browbeaten into answering your loaded and vaguely repulsive question that they are brave, and expect to be believed, says quite a bit about you.
“Personally, I don't think either outcome is remotely likely.” Which goes some way to demonstrating how slanted the question is.
“Millions of Europeans are, right now, quietly asking themselves MY exact question, and coming up with the answer: Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen.” And millions more are rejecting the question and voting for a variety of alternatives, none of which have much in common with either of those on offer - which perhaps suggests the motivation for the question being posed as it was.
On Topic it's avoid piece by David H. Exceptional events are exceptional. We should all probably get on 2016 being exceptional not the new normal. That said personally I'm more scared than I've ever been in my life. The MAD of the '80s felt quaintly stable compared to this. It's irrational, superstitious and silly but I sense a lengthening shadow behind the fascade of world affairs. It covers the arc of chaos from NE Nigeria to Islamabad and has been spreading. I just always assumed the West would fight it not welcome it as shade.
I'm probably over compensating for being wrong about Trump and Brexit. Though it's based on *why* I was wrong about Trump and Brexit. Compensating was needed. I hope 2016 was indeed an Annus Horribilis and not as I fear actually the Last Edwardian Summer.
On a least gloomy note 2016 is just about the inevitable decline of the West. That's unstoppable. What is up for grabs is relative or absolute decline, managed and chaotic. I was an optimist. Now I'm not. Western electorates seem to want to capsize the boat because they don't like the Crew. Though they think they are staging a coup and altering course. They also appear to think their are enough lifeboats. There aren't.
I may be wrong about that as well but I'm far more confident on this. It'll take decades to tell though.
Off Topic: The local press in Copeland have caught up with the financial problems of a major partner in the long planned new reactors scheme. I've no idea if one will actually delay the other but the very existence of any doubt would be a big campaign issue it's self. The 3 new Reactors are *it*. They are the totality of the socioeconomic plan for the area for decades.
“Millions of Europeans are, right now, quietly asking themselves MY exact question, and coming up with the answer: Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen.” And millions more are rejecting the question and voting for a variety of alternatives, none of which have much in common with either of those on offer - which perhaps suggests the motivation for the question being posed as it was.
The number voting one way or the other depends as much as anything on the number of terrorist truck drivers between now and those elections. People will only take so much, as soon as they start to perceive their own friends and family at risk their liberalism will fade very rapidly. Societies that feel under threat always become more conservative.
A conservative it is said is a liberal that has been mugged by reality.
@David_Evershed Yes. We really are a Sceptered Isle. Because of our history we've a high chance of being dragged into the war. But as a location to stand while the War rages most of the Planet is less fortunate. We will doubtless do our bit on the Home Front.
And we must pray daily the Germans are equal to the manifest destiny we've tossed in their lap. The Jury is out.
"Maybe because he is interesting , has interesting if sometimes divisive viewpoints rather than just whining like wimps and accusing people of being drunk as you are doing."
And sometims he's sober and he writes well. Why don't you try it?
If you have you nothing to say insinuate, the verbage of a loser.
Mr. C, Oborne's mad as a box of frogs. The French system is the one you would design if you specifically wanted to stop a far right (or left) candidate winning the presidency.
I get most of my NHS news from MD in Private Eye. If his proposals were adopted, the NHS could do what it needs with less money. Search for Dr Phil Hammond on Youtube; he also does hilarious stand-up comedy.
The apparent plan as analysed by him is to induce the rich to take out private insurance, or at least pay for treatment, and thereby shorten the NHS queue. The rich thereby pay twice, of course.
Eventually, the NHS will be like Medicare; i.e., a government-funded system for the poor. In the USA, the main cause of bankruptcy is illness. But you can't be treated by Medicare until you're destitute; they'd hire private detectives if they thought you'd stashed funds away.
I and a few friends hope we can look after ourselves well enough - i.e., diet and lifestyle - to stay well without the NHS and get to an age, maybe 95-105, where if one's fed up with it all one can just take a few pills (or a one-way train to Dignitas). I never thought this would happen in the UK.
Mr. C, Oborne's mad as a box of frogs. The French system is the one you would design if you specifically wanted to stop a far right (or left) candidate winning the presidency.
I do agree. But it's always possible to wrong about the unthinkable and the impossible.
@SeanT “thanks to everyone who had the cullions to answer the question, and Boo! to everyone who ducked it…” That you can tell people who were browbeaten into answering your loaded and vaguely repulsive question that they are brave, and expect to be believed, says quite a bit about you.
“Personally, I don't think either outcome is remotely likely.” Which goes some way to demonstrating how slanted the question is.
“Millions of Europeans are, right now, quietly asking themselves MY exact question, and coming up with the answer: Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen.” And millions more are rejecting the question and voting for a variety of alternatives, none of which have much in common with either of those on offer - which perhaps suggests the motivation for the question being posed as it was.
The biggest boo to the one who posed it, IMO.
My god, the bravery of your liberalism. Well done you for standing up so valiantly against a hypothetical question. It's actually quite moving.
I'll take liberalism over your 1930s nostalgia Futurism, and would rather not get drawn into a contest over what's 'brave', whether defined by you or not. But I'll admit you do possess a higher class of sneer than most.
“It has propelled my book to the top of the charts and they only have themselves to blame for this, these people never ever learn. So as ever I say thank you to the hysterical progressive left for doing better marketing than we could ever afford to buy for ourselves,” he claimed.
This is another example of Reactance - the theory that if you tell people they are offensive, they will react by wanting to offend you even more. Telling everyone that Milo is evil and his book should be banned and anyone who works for Simon & Schuster is in the Gestapo just made people go out and order it.
Until the Left learns the folly of this lecturing, they will get Reactance, and keep losing
Here's an excellent, prescient essay, describing Reactance and its role in the rise of Trump.
#fakenews is another example. It just encouraged a slew of evidence that the MSM are guilty of the same. And arguably worse given their previously trusted status and audience.
I honestly believe the Liberals have lost the plot precisely because they're unfamiliar with the concept of being intellectually challenged. They've no cogent alternative argument because they've run things for decades and fallen their own PR.
ruralvoter Most western nations provide most healthcare through insurance, in fact the NHS has more in common with Cuba than healthcare in most of the West
I've just looked at today's Times, and it's getting more leftist than ever.
I feel I'm reading BBC news for 80% of it. It simply isn't what it was even a year ago. I find myself looking for a story that isn't negative about conservative views.
I can ignore if be disappointed by the massive Remain angles - and even Trump hating - but ordinary news reads more like the Guardian than the Times of 2015
Agreed. And I work for them. Brexit seems to have sent The Times a bit mad (as it has done to so many). They've lurched into this shrill, hectoring bien pensant position on so many issues. Matthew Paris' now-certifiable rants are just the most obvious example.
"Get ready for Nigel Farage... the movie. The Hollywood film-maker behind the Harry Potter franchise is in talks about making a film of the former Ukip leader’s campaign to take Britain out of the European Union.
Warner Brothers, one of the world’s most successful film studios, is in talks with Arron Banks, the insurance millionaire who funded Leave.EU, about a film based on his diary of the successful campaign."
@SeanT “thanks to everyone who had the cullions to answer the question, and Boo! to everyone who ducked it…” That you can tell people who were browbeaten into answering your loaded and vaguely repulsive question that they are brave, and expect to be believed, says quite a bit about you.
“Personally, I don't think either outcome is remotely likely.” Which goes some way to demonstrating how slanted the question is.
“Millions of Europeans are, right now, quietly asking themselves MY exact question, and coming up with the answer: Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen.” And millions more are rejecting the question and voting for a variety of alternatives, none of which have much in common with either of those on offer - which perhaps suggests the motivation for the question being posed as it was.
The biggest boo to the one who posed it, IMO.
My god, the bravery of your liberalism. Well done you for standing up so valiantly against a hypothetical question. It's actually quite moving.
I'll take liberalism over your 1930s nostalgia Futurism, and would rather not get drawn into a contest over what's 'brave', whether defined by you or not. But I'll admit you do possess a higher class of sneer than most.
I guess liberals need to take comfort where they can find it, not exactly winning the world series for global leaders at the moment, and even those countries with semi-liberal leaders in position they are being strongly challenged by populists of one sort or another.
Ah yes, populism, or as it is also known, giving the voters what they want, the problem with not giving voters what they want for long enough, and giving them what the bien pensant metropolitan's think they should have, is sooner or later they get pissed off with it.
PBers...looking at this December 19 column by Gideon Rachman in the FT...(I can't post link as firewalled but you can prob google title if interested)...
How plausible do you feel Rachman's assessment is of a relatively high probability of what he labels "train crash Brexit"...
Do you guys buy this assessment? What % chance would PB ers put on this scenario playing out?
"The chaotic route to train-crash Brexit
An orderly separation from the EU should not be taken for granted...
So which is it to be: “hard” or “soft” Brexit? Maybe neither. There is a third possibility that is little discussed but increasingly likely: “train-crash Brexit”. In this version of events, the UK and the EU fail to agree a negotiated divorce. Instead, Britain simply crashes out of the EU — with chaotic consequences for trade and diplomatic relations.
The hard and soft versions of Brexit differ in their attitudes to immigration and the EU’s single market — but they also share one crucial similarity. They assume that the EU and the UK will be able to agree an orderly separation.
In fact, there are strong grounds for believing that a well-managed divorce will prove unattainable and that there will instead be a train crash. The reasons for this are both procedural and political.
Procedural: negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time
Political:There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably. The estimates in Brussels are that the UK will be facing a bill of €50bn-€60bn.That figure is likely to be greeted with outrage in the UK.
hardliners in Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative party and the British media are likely to make it impossible for the UK government to accept anything close to the financial demands made by Brussels.
As a result, it is entirely likely that Britain will simply stalk out of the talks. Brexit may happen after two years in the most abrupt and damaging fashion possible: with Britain’s membership of the EU simply lapsing.
I have cut quite alot from the above column to abbreviate and avoid breaching copyright too much....do guys on here buy this analysis? What % chance? Where could it go a different route?
@David_Evershed Yes. We really are a Sceptered Isle. Because of our history we've a high chance of being dragged into the war. But as a location to stand while the War rages most of the Planet is less fortunate. We will doubtless do our bit on the Home Front.
And we must pray daily the Germans are equal to the manifest destiny we've tossed in their lap. The Jury is out.
They are not and if the French government withdraw from the EU in order to fend off populists (and I mean withdraw in a figurative sense, not literal) then Germany will truly have control over all of Europe. It will find itself alone and without any nation to blame for why the EU and Eurozone is failing other than itself. It was Germany who let in millions of migrants, it was Germany which insisted on punishing austerity, it is Germany who have acted parasitically within the Eurozone and leeched money from Southern Europe and wholesale purchased Eastern European industry. When one steps back from Europe and looks at the culprit behind its ills, one can only see Germany at fault. It is the nation which has benefited the most from the EU and Euro, yet sits with a huge primary and trade income surplus vs the rest of Europe (including the UK and France) while preaching holier than thou sermons about prudence.
If Germany went bankrupt tomorrow I would shed no tears. They have used a mix of wage dumping, saving tens of billions on defence and border control and low level industrial subsidies to undercut the rest of Europe. I don't mind them doing that, it's a competitive world and nations must use any advantage they can get, but to do it while preaching as they do, well they can get fucked for all I care. Most of my leave vote was driven by wanted to get out of a future German dominated DM zone plus the UK and possibly a couple of Scandinavian countries. Nothing I have seen since then shows a remain vote would have ended up anywhere different.
DecepitJohn " No-shows? So what? What money is wasted if people miss an appointment in Outpatients or with their family doctor? None. Not a dime, not a bean, not a sausage. It just means the next patient will be seen a bit sooner (which in my experience normally means 20 minutes late rather than half an hour). When it does waste money is for (say) elective surgery, where expensive resources really have been booked and reserved for that patient. But most of the time no-shows are irrelevant and we should not be misled by innumerate doctors dividing the fixed costs of the surgery by the number of minutes in a day to declare that each appointment costs £xxx so a missed appointment loses £xxx"
Just a quick reply to this.....
Sorry I just cannot agree. It does lose money as the expensive equipment is not being used and sits idle as do the trained personnel using it. Try doing this in a factory and the cost mount up considerable with lines idle. Having now seen the equipment and seeing this and having this explained first hand I can understand their utter frustration and their anger.
In regard to surgeries those that do need the doctor are turned away because all appointments are taken. Emergency appointments may or may not be available but more likely have been taken at which point you are advise proceed to A&E if conditions worsen or if getting much worse use the emergency service. It has a knock on effect right down the line due to the ignorance of people that don't turn up. You yourself would be the first to criticise the queue in A&E. I have experienced this just recently but because of my condition was taken straight to an A&E bed as I was having difficulty breathing. I spent the next 12 hours in A&E and a further 4 days in hospital. I cannot say enough how good they all were. I sat down and wrote a hand written 2 page letter to all departments involved which is the first I have written a hand letter since I can't remember when. Everything is Email for me these days.
Oh well not to worry about all of that heh? at least you got into the docs 10 minutes earlier and no one else interrupted your obvious very busy day so I am very pleased for you.
@yellowsubmarine agree with your analysis. Brexit was the moment the tide turned, we are pretty much hostage now to forces out of our control. It isn't going to be good and betting winnings are pretty small consolation in the scheme of things.
PBers...looking at this December 19 column by Gideon Rachman in the FT...(I can't post link as firewalled but you can prob google title if interested)...
How plausible do you feel Rachman's assessment is of a relatively high probability of what he labels "train crash Brexit"...
Do you guys buy this assessment? What % chance would PB ers put on this scenario playing out?
"The chaotic route to train-crash Brexit
An orderly separation from the EU should not be taken for granted...
So which is it to be: “hard” or “soft” Brexit? Maybe neither. There is a third possibility that is little discussed but increasingly likely: “train-crash Brexit”. In this version of events, the UK and the EU fail to agree a negotiated divorce. Instead, Britain simply crashes out of the EU — with chaotic consequences for trade and diplomatic relations.
The hard and soft versions of Brexit differ in their attitudes to immigration and the EU’s single market — but they also share one crucial similarity. They assume that the EU and the UK will be able to agree an orderly separation.
In fact, there are strong grounds for believing that a well-managed divorce will prove unattainable and that there will instead be a train crash. The reasons for this are both procedural and political.
Procedural: negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time
Political:There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably. The estimates in Brussels are that the UK will be facing a bill of €50bn-€60bn.That figure is likely to be greeted with outrage in the UK.
hardliners in Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative party and the British media are likely to make it impossible for the UK government to accept anything close to the financial demands made by Brussels.
As a result, it is entirely likely that Britain will simply stalk out of the talks. Brexit may happen after two years in the most abrupt and damaging fashion possible: with Britain’s membership of the EU simply lapsing.
I have cut quite alot from the above column to abbreviate and avoid breaching copyright too much....do guys on here buy this analysis? What % chance? Where could it go a different route?
I certainly hope it does. The whole thing is a massive bluff. Europe has far more to lose than we do, on every score.
According to Plato, liberals have lost the plot. I think the truth is somewhat different. We are the only ones who haven't lost the plot. It's everyone else who is heading away from evidence and facts. The problem for us liberals is that we find it very difficult to understand why people would rather stick with their gut than listen to facts, and therefore have found it hard to connect with people properly. When we offer challenge we come over as if we feel superior. As no doubt Plato thinks I am doing with this post. The answer is NOT for liberals to let go of facts and evidence. We feel as much commitment to liberal ideals as the alt-right or hard left do to what they want. We just need to let that commitment show. You can't fight extremism successfully by being nice or by telling people they have their facts wrong. You do it by passionately arguing for what you believe in at every possible opportunity. You won't sway the real extremists - but you will provide an alternative focus for the vast mass of people currently in the middle somewhere and pull them away from the sort of dystopias SeanT is imagining.
According to Plato, liberals have lost the plot. I think the truth is somewhat different. We are the only ones who haven't lost the plot. It's everyone else who is heading away from evidence and facts. The problem for us liberals is that we find it very difficult to understand why people would rather stick with their gut than listen to facts, and therefore have found it hard to connect with people properly. When we offer challenge we come over as if we feel superior. As no doubt Plato thinks I am doing with this post. The answer is NOT for liberals to let go of facts and evidence. We feel as much commitment to liberal ideals as the alt-right or hard left do to what they want. We just need to let that commitment show. You can't fight extremism successfully by being nice or by telling people they have their facts wrong. You do it by passionately arguing for what you believe in at every possible opportunity. You won't sway the real extremists - but you will provide an alternative focus for the vast mass of people currently in the middle somewhere and pull them away from the sort of dystopias SeanT is imagining.
Happy New Year, everyone
Because the facts are written by liberals and you have all become untrustworthy.
According to Plato, liberals have lost the plot. I think the truth is somewhat different. We are the only ones who haven't lost the plot. It's everyone else who is heading away from evidence and facts. The problem for us liberals is that we find it very difficult to understand why people would rather stick with their gut than listen to facts, and therefore have found it hard to connect with people properly. When we offer challenge we come over as if we feel superior. As no doubt Plato thinks I am doing with this post. The answer is NOT for liberals to let go of facts and evidence. We feel as much commitment to liberal ideals as the alt-right or hard left do to what they want. We just need to let that commitment show. You can't fight extremism successfully by being nice or by telling people they have their facts wrong. You do it by passionately arguing for what you believe in at every possible opportunity. You won't sway the real extremists - but you will provide an alternative focus for the vast mass of people currently in the middle somewhere and pull them away from the sort of dystopias SeanT is imagining.
Happy New Year, everyone
Because the facts are written by liberals and you have all become untrustworthy.
Quite. And some facts are inconvenient, so they're left out of the equation. But still the plebs are supposed to just take it from the 'experts' and shut up.
This awakening, this refusal to just accept things being handed down on tablets of stone, should be met with joy by any fan of knowledge and understanding.
PBers...looking at this December 19 column by Gideon Rachman in the FT...(I can't post link as firewalled but you can prob google title if interested)...
How plausible do you feel Rachman's assessment is of a relatively high probability of what he labels "train crash Brexit"...
Do you guys buy this assessment? What % chance would PB ers put on this scenario playing out?
"The chaotic route to train-crash Brexit
An orderly separation from the EU should not be taken for granted...
So which is it to be: “hard” or “soft” Brexit? Maybe neither. There is a third possibility that is little discussed but increasingly likely: “train-crash Brexit”. In this version of events, the UK and the EU fail to agree a negotiated divorce. Instead, Britain simply crashes out of the EU — with chaotic consequences for trade and diplomatic relations.
The hard and soft versions of Brexit differ in their attitudes to immigration and the EU’s single market — but they also share one crucial similarity. They assume that the EU and the UK will be able to agree an orderly separation.
In fact, there are strong grounds for believing that a well-managed divorce will prove unattainable and that there will instead be a train crash. The reasons for this are both procedural and political.
Procedural: negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time
Political:There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably. The estimates in Brussels are that the UK will be facing a bill of €50bn-€60bn.That figure is likely to be greeted with outrage in the UK.
hardliners in Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative party and the British media are likely to make it impossible for the UK government to accept anything close to the financial demands made by Brussels.
As a result, it is entirely likely that Britain will simply stalk out of the talks. Brexit may happen after two years in the most abrupt and damaging fashion possible: with Britain’s membership of the EU simply lapsing.
I have cut quite alot from the above column to abbreviate and avoid breaching copyright too much....do guys on here buy this analysis? What % chance? Where could it go a different route?
This is essentially my analysis too except that I think when it comes down to it, the Brexiteers will be thrown under the oncoming train and we'll simply Remain.
now you are being silly MaxPB. A fact is a fact is a fact, and is objectively provable.
So, we could argue over whether climate change is happening (just an example, I don't kow what your views are on it). But that would be arguing over interpretation of facts, not facts themselves surely? You might argue that every scientist who says they believe rising temperatures are a sign of climate change is actually a liberal who is interpreting the evidence wrongly. The people who worry me are the ones who say that the list of the 10 hottest years, most of which are very recent and include 2016, is not factual, because they don't want to believe it, so make out that it is made up by "experts".
now you are being silly MaxPB. A fact is a fact is a fact, and is objectively provable.
So, we could argue over whether climate change is happening (just an example, I don't kow what your views are on it). But that would be arguing over interpretation of facts, not facts themselves surely? You might argue that every scientist who says they believe rising temperatures are a sign of climate change is actually a liberal who is interpreting the evidence wrongly. The people who worry me are the ones who say that the list of the 10 hottest years, most of which are very recent and include 2016, is not factual, because they don't want to believe it, so make out that it is made up by "experts".
Have to go, washing machine is beeping.
Is it? Is your machine beeping? We only have your word for it. You might be making it up to fit your agenda.
now you are being silly MaxPB. A fact is a fact is a fact, and is objectively provable.
So, we could argue over whether climate change is happening (just an example, I don't kow what your views are on it). But that would be arguing over interpretation of facts, not facts themselves surely? You might argue that every scientist who says they believe rising temperatures are a sign of climate change is actually a liberal who is interpreting the evidence wrongly. The people who worry me are the ones who say that the list of the 10 hottest years, most of which are very recent and include 2016, is not factual, because they don't want to believe it, so make out that it is made up by "experts".
Have to go, washing machine is beeping.
Is it? Is your machine beeping? We only have your word for it. You might be making it up to fit your agenda.
Surely a wasboard and a mangle would be less likely to contribute to global warming?
ruralvoter Most western nations provide most healthcare through insurance, in fact the NHS has more in common with Cuba than healthcare in most of the West
AFAIK Canada, New Zealand, Scandinavia and parts of southern Europe have a taxation-funded system although some charge £10 to visit the doctor and some have no NHS dentistry.
Taxation funding gives much lower admin. costs than checking if a resident has or has not paid insurance, if so has he paid enough, yes he has, so treat him, then bill him £300 then process his claim for a return of 75% or £225 ... aargh.
A friend's brother in Germany was denied 'routine' healthcare because although he was a German citizen he'd lived part of his life in the USA and didn't have enough German contributions. I think he had to pay in full for medical treatment through his 60s. He died in 2013, possibly from the financial stress, his sister thinks; she says the UK system is superior and that if we didn't overpay doctors compared to Germany it would be even more impressive.
What are going to be the "black swans" of 2017? Maybe:
A military clash in the Pacific between China and Japan.
A banking crisis in China resulting in the bubble finally bursting (this is a repeat forecast from each of the last 5 years).
Aggressive growth in the US making others wondering about the benefits of free trade (ignoring of course the massive internal market available to US firms) resulting in several trading blocs straining and possibly breaking up.
Merkel being beaten in Germany.
Italy leaving the Euro (another repeat).
Just maybe the Article 50 negotiations with the UK coming to an early conclusion.
What are going to be the "black swans" of 2017? Maybe:
A military clash in the Pacific between China and Japan.
A banking crisis in China resulting in the bubble finally bursting (this is a repeat forecast from each of the last 5 years).
Aggressive growth in the US making others wondering about the benefits of free trade (ignoring of course the massive internal market available to US firms) resulting in several trading blocs straining and possibly breaking up.
Merkel being beaten in Germany.
Italy leaving the Euro (another repeat).
Just maybe the Article 50 negotiations with the UK coming to an early conclusion.
UDI from Sturgeon due to playing fast and loose with the constitution in order to invoke Article 50 in time.
What are going to be the "black swans" of 2017? Maybe:
A military clash in the Pacific between China and Japan.
A banking crisis in China resulting in the bubble finally bursting (this is a repeat forecast from each of the last 5 years).
Aggressive growth in the US making others wondering about the benefits of free trade (ignoring of course the massive internal market available to US firms) resulting in several trading blocs straining and possibly breaking up.
Merkel being beaten in Germany.
Italy leaving the Euro (another repeat).
Just maybe the Article 50 negotiations with the UK coming to an early conclusion.
UDI from Sturgeon due to playing fast and loose with the constitution in order to invoke Article 50 in time.
Ha. I was tempted to forecast the Scottish tories having twice as many councillors as Labour but I am not sure that is really a black swan anymore. Maybe a grey.
An Afghan migrant attacked a Christian woman at an asylum centre because he could hear her reading the Bible.
The 50-year-old was attacked in accommodation in Timelkam, Voecklamarkt in North Western Austria.
Her alleged attacker was a 22-year-old man from Afghanistan who had taken offence to the fact that the woman had been invited by Christian residents of the property to discuss the Bible.
Mr. L, where would such a Pacific clash occur? The disputed islands would seem the likeliest flashpoint. Not up on geography, but not sure they're in the right body of water.
And yes, it's a very nice picture. Although there is a missing apostrophe.
An Afghan migrant attacked a Christian woman at an asylum centre because he could hear her reading the Bible.
The 50-year-old was attacked in accommodation in Timelkam, Voecklamarkt in North Western Austria.
Her alleged attacker was a 22-year-old man from Afghanistan who had taken offence to the fact that the woman had been invited by Christian residents of the property to discuss the Bible.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to give a damn about such people's human rights. They should be sent back to the country they come from and if that does not work out well for them then they might want to reflect how they behaved when they were offered shelter.
Mr. L, where would such a Pacific clash occur? The disputed islands would seem the likeliest flashpoint. Not up on geography, but not sure they're in the right body of water.
And yes, it's a very nice picture. Although there is a missing apostrophe.
Yes, they are technically in the East China Sea. But the fireworks could start anywhere.
I agree with David's analysis, so far as we can see at this point. In particular I think he's right that the three Eureopean elections have predictable centre-right results, and further terrorist events, should they occur, will not change that.
The wild card is indeed Trump. We appear to be about to see a major US-Russia rapprochement, and I'm not sure anyone has quite thought through the implications of that. I'm sure Trump has not, and I wonder if Putin has. To some extent it's a good thing and perfectly logical - there is no longer any particular ideological divide which makes bitter rivalry sensible, and Russia is far too weak economically to pose a major financial danger. There is a risk, though, for the countries bordering Russia, some of which do not have especially attractive past or present regimes themselves and won't easily mobilise Western opinion to support them against pressure, though I think there would still be a strong reaction to any actual invasion. The Ukraine could be the next flashpoint - most West Ukrainians clealry don't want to be run by Russia, but their leadership is not acting in a way to maximise Western support. If Russia leans on them in ways short of overt invasion, I think Trump will say meh and Western Europe won't be that different.
Happy new year all. Apologies for not putting together either my return to my 2016 predictions(probably my worst ever even by my low standards) or my view on 2017. I've been a bit tied up.
For what it's worth, I agree with much of David Herdson's analysis. He should be terrified.
A few extra thoughts. Theresa May should be more worried about her own party than the opposition in either House. She is a poor man manager and is accumulating enemies unnecessarily. Sooner or later this will catch up with her.
Brexit negotiations will probably remain stalled for most of 2017. The EU side has no reason to hurry and Theresa May will be hoping that something turns up to improve her position.
Britain will remain a deeply divided country as Remainers remain totally unpersuaded that Brexit has any merit at all and Leavers bleat that Remainers aren't playing ball. The bickering will intensify in the absence of any forward motion on Brexit.
PBers...looking at this December 19 column by Gideon Rachman in the FT...(I can't post link as firewalled but you can prob google title if interested)...
How plausible do you feel Rachman's assessment is of a relatively high probability of what he labels "train crash Brexit"...
Do you guys buy this assessment? What % chance would PB ers put on this scenario playing out?
"The chaotic route to train-crash Brexit
An orderly separation from the EU should not be taken for granted...
So which is it to be: “hard” or “soft” Brexit? Maybe neither. There is a third possibility that is little discussed but increasingly likely: “train-crash Brexit”. In this version of events, the UK and the EU fail to agree a negotiated divorce. Instead, Britain simply crashes out of the EU — with chaotic consequences for trade and diplomatic relations.
The hard and soft versions of Brexit differ in their attitudes to immigration and the EU’s single market — but they also share one crucial similarity. They assume that the EU and the UK will be able to agree an orderly separation.
In fact, there are strong grounds for believing that a well-managed divorce will prove unattainable and that there will instead be a train crash. The reasons for this are both procedural and political.
Procedural: negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time
Political:There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably. The estimates in Brussels are that the UK will be facing a bill of €50bn-€60bn.That figure is likely to be greeted with outrage in the UK.
hardliners in Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative party and the British media are likely to make it impossible for the UK government to accept anything close to the financial demands made by Brussels.
As a result, it is entirely likely that Britain will simply stalk out of the talks. Brexit may happen after two years in the most abrupt and damaging fashion possible: with Britain’s membership of the EU simply lapsing.
I have cut quite alot from the above column to abbreviate and avoid breaching copyright too much....do guys on here buy this analysis? What % chance? Where could it go a different route?
I think that is an entirely credible scenario.
The EU see the negotiations to be about the process, with talks on a post Brexit deal to follow. Our government wants the negotiations reversed. I cannot see that happening.
Tis ironic that after years of wanting opt outs, Brexiteers are now wanting opt ins. The Euro Hokey Cokey continues.
An Afghan migrant attacked a Christian woman at an asylum centre because he could hear her reading the Bible.
The 50-year-old was attacked in accommodation in Timelkam, Voecklamarkt in North Western Austria.
Her alleged attacker was a 22-year-old man from Afghanistan who had taken offence to the fact that the woman had been invited by Christian residents of the property to discuss the Bible.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to give a damn about such people's human rights. They should be sent back to the country they come from and if that does not work out well for them then they might want to reflect how they behaved when they were offered shelter.
Entirely agree, I see a couple of such reports a day on Twitter. They've forfeited our collective sympathy.
It's all demands, ingratitude, hands out and threats.
An Afghan migrant attacked a Christian woman at an asylum centre because he could hear her reading the Bible.
The 50-year-old was attacked in accommodation in Timelkam, Voecklamarkt in North Western Austria.
Her alleged attacker was a 22-year-old man from Afghanistan who had taken offence to the fact that the woman had been invited by Christian residents of the property to discuss the Bible.
Happy new year all. Apologies for not putting together either my return to my 2016 predictions(probably my worst ever even by my low standards) or my view on 2017. I've been a bit tied up.
For what it's worth, I agree with much of David Herdson's analysis. He should be terrified.
A few extra thoughts. Theresa May should be more worried about her own party than the opposition in either House. She is a poor man manager and is accumulating enemies unnecessarily. Sooner or later this will catch up with her.
Brexit negotiations will probably remain stalled for most of 2017. The EU side has no reason to hurry and Theresa May will be hoping that something turns up to improve her position.
Britain will remain a deeply divided country as Remainers remain totally unpersuaded that Brexit has any merit at all and Leavers bleat that Remainers aren't playing ball. The bickering will intensify in the absence of any forward motion on Brexit.
Shall we go then? They do not move.
Britain will prosper, whilst many of those not used to not getting their own way will continue to throw toys out of the pram. I have little sympathy with people who cannot cope with a democratic decision.
I put this up the other day but my economic forecasts for 2016 were:
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
Undaunted, for 2017 I forecast:
2.2% growth. An improvement in our balance of payments (albeit not by much). Inflation to stay below 2.5%. Base rates to stay below 1%, just. Mortgage rates to barely move (again). The government borrowing figures to surprise on the upside (ie better than currently forecast). Unemployment to remain broadly static. Wages to grow by 2% in real terms. Slightly better growth in the EZ on the back of a more expansive policy by the ECB (possibly using Brexit as an excuse).
Several Lidl reds at about £3.79 upwards are superb value for money. I no longer buy much expensive red. I opened a good Cote du Rhone on returning from Xmas away; I just have a glass or two of good ordinary red wine with a meal once a day and offer friends the same if they visit.
A builder working for me on some landscaping got blind drunk in the pub on Xmas eve, followed by a row with his wife. He can't understand the concept of drinking in moderation and with food.
Do a blind [not in that sense!] tasting of a cheap red alongside some £20, £40 ... bottles. Then buy the few cheap ones that are virtually on a par with the £20-40 ones. They don't change much in quality between years although they may go in and out of stock.
Except for older clarets and Riojas, like the Tesco one, I'm not sure any expensive reds are now worth the price. The New World reds I drank at relatives over Xmas were shockingly weak-bodied & I'm sure a bottle had cost them far more than £3.79.
I've not had the same luck with Aldi and some reds @£3.50 have been disgusting but they may have some as good as Lidl's.
Happy new year all. Apologies for not putting together either my return to my 2016 predictions(probably my worst ever even by my low standards) or my view on 2017. I've been a bit tied up.
For what it's worth, I agree with much of David Herdson's analysis. He should be terrified.
A few extra thoughts. Theresa May should be more worried about her own party than the opposition in either House. She is a poor man manager and is accumulating enemies unnecessarily. Sooner or later this will catch up with her.
Brexit negotiations will probably remain stalled for most of 2017. The EU side has no reason to hurry and Theresa May will be hoping that something turns up to improve her position.
Britain will remain a deeply divided country as Remainers remain totally unpersuaded that Brexit has any merit at all and Leavers bleat that Remainers aren't playing ball. The bickering will intensify in the absence of any forward motion on Brexit.
Shall we go then? They do not move.
Britain will prosper, whilst many of those not used to not getting their own way will continue to throw toys out of the pram. I have little sympathy with people who cannot cope with a democratic decision.
Haven't you heard? The Racist Poster and the Lying Bus invalidate the referendum. If leavers know all about the Racist Poster and the Lying Bus, and haven't changed their minds then they are such pestilent and disgusting creatures that their views are irrelevant.
I put this up the other day but my economic forecasts for 2016 were:
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in. I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on. I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely. I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate. I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy. The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
Undaunted, for 2017 I forecast:
2.2% growth. An improvement in our balance of payments (albeit not by much). Inflation to stay below 2.5%. Base rates to stay below 1%, just. Mortgage rates to barely move (again). The government borrowing figures to surprise on the upside (ie better than currently forecast). Unemployment to remain broadly static. Wages to grow by 2% in real terms. Slightly better growth in the EZ on the back of a more expansive policy by the ECB (possibly using Brexit as an excuse).
OK. My (economic) forecasts for 2017.
The UK to manage nominal growth of about 4% (which is pretty much the same level as the last few years), but with inflation of close to 3%, that will just be around 1% in real terms.
UK unemployment to stay at around the current levels, so the psychological impact of the slowing growth will be modest.
Spain to surpass Italy in terms of PPP GDP per capita.
A modest continued recovery in the Eurozone, with GDP continuing to expand at 1.5% to 2%. Unemployment will continue to fall slowly, albeit from very high levels.
Sterling will weaken further, and our exports will not expand as much as hoped.
I'm not one to make predictions in all honesty - I think 2017 will be a typical 365-day year with a good mix of Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and other days split over a 12-month cycle starting in January and ending in December.
The days will be at their longest in June and July will be warmer than February.
Slightly more on topic, the coming rapprochement in US-Russian relations is a huge geopolitical event. The exclusion of the US and western Europe from events in Syria is significant as is the (likely) much improved personal relationship between Trump and Putin.
To these men, Europe is an irrelevant backwater whose bickering politicians are barely worth the time of day. The key players in the Trump-Putin axis will be the likes of India and Australia as counterweights to China.
That may be the message of 2017 - the growing irrelevance of Europe.
Comments
I'd vote LePen or Farage.
But the question is, in reality, neither hard nor deep. In fact, boiled down, it is trite.
Let's make it extreme. If forced on pain of death to make a binary choice, would I vote for Hitler or the Taliban? Hitler, of course.
Why? Assuming their facism is equally extreme and unacceptable, they are both bad to the infinity. But at least Hitler's facism is based on a Western Culture and a culture of science and learning, however those are bastardized. The Taliban is based on a culture that is almost entirely alien to me.
So the question boils down to 'which is the greater bad? 'Bad to the infinity', or 'Bad to the infinity plus x'
There may be almost no practical difference between the two outcomes, but at least in theory it is clear which is the worst option.
How the Kippers do will probably be a function of how BrExit looks in May. If the government lose in the SC, and are having all sorts of fun and games in parliament trying to pass an Article 50 act, the Tories could be in for a kicking in Leave areas as voters trying and put a bit of backbone into the government, and fire a warning shot across MPs not following the script. If the government wins the SC, or their bill waltzes through parliament without a hitch, and as a result they look like they are in control of the program, they might get off much more lightly.
Labour backbenchers would vote for an election because:
1. Most of them won't be made redundant. Most would be re-elected.
2. It avoids deselection battles.
3. It avoids the new boundaries coming in.
4. It will be the best bet of both dumping Corbyn and keeping the left off the next ballotpaper.
5. They will have been told to. Voting against a dissolution motion - in effect keeping a Tory govt in place might be enough for the NEC to refuse nominations.
6. There's a non-zero chance that an election could deprive the Tories of a majority.
Whether the BBC ignore either or both stories will depend on whether Labour lose seats. If so, the narrative will be all about Corbyn.
After the weekend, the BBC will still continue to ignore the Lib Dems because they'll still only have 9 MPs and no-one in the London media gives a toss about local government.
How does answering either of the forced-choice alternatives equal knowing what they stand for in extremis?
In fact, it's exactly the opposite: it's capitulation. Unless, of course, the answer is really what they stand for.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Scappaticci
And I would suggest that our current spooks do exactly the same (and probably are).
Hardly advocating doing nothing...
(As an aside, infinity plus x is the same as infinity).
Incidentally, it is a commonplace in the Muslim community that the Jihadi types are riddled with informers, and that wannabes are being deliberately allowed to go abroad so they are easier to kill.
Perhaps those inclined to reach reflexively for Adolf could try Uncle Joe instead just for novelty - or a Little Red Book.
https://www.pushdoctor.co.uk/how-it-works/app
Happy New Year to you and Mrs Herdson.
Have just read Peter Oborne's New Year predictions... We'd all better keep a glass of Whisky on standby...
I feel I'm reading BBC news for 80% of it. It simply isn't what it was even a year ago. I find myself looking for a story that isn't negative about conservative views.
I can ignore if be disappointed by the massive Remain angles - and even Trump hating - but ordinary news reads more like the Guardian than the Times of 2015
Russian diplomats were given 72 hours to leave country. Maybe we can get them to take all those celebrities who promised to leave with them.
' Labour backbenchers would vote for an election because:
1. Most of them won't be made redundant. Most would be re-elected.
2. It avoids deselection battles.
3. It avoids the new boundaries coming in.
4. It will be the best bet of both dumping Corbyn and keeping the left off the next ballotpaper.
5. They will have been told to. Voting against a dissolution motion - in effect keeping a Tory govt in place might be enough for the NEC to refuse nominations.
6. There's a non-zero chance that an election could deprive the Tories of a majority.'
I don't disagree really, though unless the polls begin to mirror the most recent Opinium poll I would expect Corbyn to be pressured into finding a reason for changing his mind!.
Labour backbenchers would also only need to sit on their hands to thwart an early election.
Snowflakes should clearly keep away.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crisis-Luke-Carlton-Frank-Gardner-ebook/dp/B019CGXQ9O/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483195719&sr=1-1&keywords=crisis+gardner
Mr. Herdson, surely the point of a shock or black swan is that one doesn't (indeed, by definition can't) see it coming?
Surprised it took you so long to get there
You performed a service to PB by providing all those links to the false news sites in the US election. I suspect most of us were exasperated by them because we could see they were mainly false.
What we didn't realise was how effective they were (or perhaps they weren't and it was the Russians wot won it for Trump, or the combination of the two).
What I don't know was whether you believed them ( and therefore favoured Trump) or disbelieved them but nevertheless thought they were effective enough to give Trump the victory. In either case, well done.
I could never choose sharia and Islamism. My rights and those of my daughter would be severely constrained and one of my sons would likely be killed. Islamism seems to me to be fascism in a religious garb. So - if forced to choose- it would have to be Farage. But I would do everything in my power to avoid my country being faced with such an unpalatable choice.
And if Britain really did end up in a place where we had only a choice of types of fascism, I would likely leave since it would not be a country I recognise nor the country I love.
Here's the French trailer to minimise spoilers - its actually almost all in spoken English. Think Dexter/Sopranos/Breaking Bad for tone. I'm going to watch it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjePiOklfNs
Anyway, we'll see if we get any New Year terrorism...
Of course I would
I gather Milo is now #1
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/30/milo-rockets-to-2-spot-on-amazon-bestsellers-list-one-day-after-announcing-book/
“It has propelled my book to the top of the charts and they only have themselves to blame for this, these people never ever learn. So as ever I say thank you to the hysterical progressive left for doing better marketing than we could ever afford to buy for ourselves,” he claimed.
I'd recommend his even more harrowing Black Earth, and particularly the chapter near the end on the few who had the moral and physical courage not to make the devil's choice, and retain their humanity.
“thanks to everyone who had the cullions to answer the question, and Boo! to everyone who ducked it…”
That you can tell people who were browbeaten into answering your loaded and vaguely repulsive question that they are brave, and expect to be believed, says quite a bit about you.
“Personally, I don't think either outcome is remotely likely.”
Which goes some way to demonstrating how slanted the question is.
“Millions of Europeans are, right now, quietly asking themselves MY exact question, and coming up with the answer: Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen.”
And millions more are rejecting the question and voting for a variety of alternatives, none of which have much in common with either of those on offer - which perhaps suggests the motivation for the question being posed as it was.
The biggest boo to the one who posed it, IMO.
I'm probably over compensating for being wrong about Trump and Brexit. Though it's based on *why* I was wrong about Trump and Brexit. Compensating was needed. I hope 2016 was indeed an Annus Horribilis and not as I fear actually the Last Edwardian Summer.
On a least gloomy note 2016 is just about the inevitable decline of the West. That's unstoppable. What is up for grabs is relative or absolute decline, managed and chaotic. I was an optimist. Now I'm not. Western electorates seem to want to capsize the boat because they don't like the Crew. Though they think they are staging a coup and altering course. They also appear to think their are enough lifeboats. There aren't.
I may be wrong about that as well but I'm far more confident on this. It'll take decades to tell though.
A conservative it is said is a liberal that has been mugged by reality.
Britain has the advantage of being an island.
We can always pull up the drawbridge.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/31/serious-mistakes-nhs-patient-care-rising-figures-reveal-hospitals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
And we must pray daily the Germans are equal to the manifest destiny we've tossed in their lap. The Jury is out.
This could be at least partly an improvement in transparency and a improvement in the culture with people being less scared to report mistakes.
Roger said:
Malc
"Maybe because he is interesting , has interesting if sometimes divisive viewpoints rather than just whining like wimps and accusing people of being drunk as you are doing."
And sometims he's sober and he writes well. Why don't you try it?
If you have you nothing to say insinuate, the verbage of a loser.
I get most of my NHS news from MD in Private Eye. If his proposals were adopted, the NHS could do what it needs with less money. Search for Dr Phil Hammond on Youtube; he also does hilarious stand-up comedy.
The apparent plan as analysed by him is to induce the rich to take out private insurance, or at least pay for treatment, and thereby shorten the NHS queue. The rich thereby pay twice, of course.
Eventually, the NHS will be like Medicare; i.e., a government-funded system for the poor. In the USA, the main cause of bankruptcy is illness. But you can't be treated by Medicare until you're destitute; they'd hire private detectives if they thought you'd stashed funds away.
I and a few friends hope we can look after ourselves well enough - i.e., diet and lifestyle - to stay well without the NHS and get to an age, maybe 95-105, where if one's fed up with it all one can just take a few pills (or a one-way train to Dignitas). I never thought this would happen in the UK.
But I'll admit you do possess a higher class of sneer than most.
I gather Milo is now #1
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/30/milo-rockets-to-2-spot-on-amazon-bestsellers-list-one-day-after-announcing-book/ #fakenews is another example. It just encouraged a slew of evidence that the MSM are guilty of the same. And arguably worse given their previously trusted status and audience.
I honestly believe the Liberals have lost the plot precisely because they're unfamiliar with the concept of being intellectually challenged. They've no cogent alternative argument because they've run things for decades and fallen their own PR.
Karma.
"Get ready for Nigel Farage... the movie. The Hollywood film-maker behind the Harry Potter franchise is in talks about making a film of the former Ukip leader’s campaign to take Britain out of the European Union.
Warner Brothers, one of the world’s most successful film studios, is in talks with Arron Banks, the insurance millionaire who funded Leave.EU, about a film based on his diary of the successful campaign."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/nigel-farage-movie-warner-brothers-talks-makebrexit-campaign/?WT.mc_id=e_DM283614&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New_AEM_Recipient&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_AEM_Recipient_2016_12_31&utm_campaign=DM283614
Ah yes, populism, or as it is also known, giving the voters what they want, the problem with not giving voters what they want for long enough, and giving them what the bien pensant metropolitan's think they should have, is sooner or later they get pissed off with it.
How plausible do you feel Rachman's assessment is of a relatively high probability of what he labels "train crash Brexit"...
Do you guys buy this assessment? What % chance would PB ers put on this scenario playing out?
"The chaotic route to train-crash Brexit
An orderly separation from the EU should not be taken for granted...
So which is it to be: “hard” or “soft” Brexit? Maybe neither. There is a third possibility that is little discussed but increasingly likely: “train-crash Brexit”. In this version of events, the UK and the EU fail to agree a negotiated divorce. Instead, Britain simply crashes out of the EU — with chaotic consequences for trade and diplomatic relations.
The hard and soft versions of Brexit differ in their attitudes to immigration and the EU’s single market — but they also share one crucial similarity. They assume that the EU and the UK will be able to agree an orderly separation.
In fact, there are strong grounds for believing that a well-managed divorce will prove unattainable and that there will instead be a train crash. The reasons for this are both procedural and political.
Procedural: negotiations are too complicated to complete in the allotted time
Political:There is already plenty of simmering ill will on both sides of the Channel. The British are hoping that, when the talks actually begin, things will calm down. In reality, it is more likely that the opposite will happen. mutual acrimony will quickly increase — and talks could break down irretrievably. The estimates in Brussels are that the UK will be facing a bill of €50bn-€60bn.That figure is likely to be greeted with outrage in the UK.
hardliners in Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative party and the British media are likely to make it impossible for the UK government to accept anything close to the financial demands made by Brussels.
As a result, it is entirely likely that Britain will simply stalk out of the talks. Brexit may happen after two years in the most abrupt and damaging fashion possible: with Britain’s membership of the EU simply lapsing.
I have cut quite alot from the above column to abbreviate and avoid breaching copyright too much....do guys on here buy this analysis? What % chance? Where could it go a different route?
https://youtu.be/hnegoVG22CM
If Germany went bankrupt tomorrow I would shed no tears. They have used a mix of wage dumping, saving tens of billions on defence and border control and low level industrial subsidies to undercut the rest of Europe. I don't mind them doing that, it's a competitive world and nations must use any advantage they can get, but to do it while preaching as they do, well they can get fucked for all I care. Most of my leave vote was driven by wanted to get out of a future German dominated DM zone plus the UK and possibly a couple of Scandinavian countries. Nothing I have seen since then shows a remain vote would have ended up anywhere different.
DecepitJohn
" No-shows? So what? What money is wasted if people miss an appointment in Outpatients or with their family doctor? None. Not a dime, not a bean, not a sausage. It just means the next patient will be seen a bit sooner (which in my experience normally means 20 minutes late rather than half an hour).
When it does waste money is for (say) elective surgery, where expensive resources really have been booked and reserved for that patient. But most of the time no-shows are irrelevant and we should not be misled by innumerate doctors dividing the fixed costs of the surgery by the number of minutes in a day to declare that each appointment costs £xxx so a missed appointment loses £xxx"
Just a quick reply to this.....
Sorry I just cannot agree. It does lose money as the expensive equipment is not being used and sits idle as do the trained personnel using it. Try doing this in a factory and the cost mount up considerable with lines idle. Having now seen the equipment and seeing this and having this explained first hand I can understand their utter frustration and their anger.
In regard to surgeries those that do need the doctor are turned away because all appointments are taken. Emergency appointments may or may not be available but more likely have been taken at which point you are advise proceed to A&E if conditions worsen or if getting much worse use the emergency service. It has a knock on effect right down the line due to the ignorance of people that don't turn up. You yourself would be the first to criticise the queue in A&E. I have experienced this just recently but because of my condition was taken straight to an A&E bed as I was having difficulty breathing. I spent the next 12 hours in A&E and a further 4 days in hospital. I cannot say enough how good they all were. I sat down and wrote a hand written 2 page letter to all departments involved which is the first I have written a hand letter since I can't remember when. Everything is Email for me these days.
Oh well not to worry about all of that heh? at least you got into the docs 10 minutes earlier and no one else interrupted your obvious very busy day so I am very pleased for you.
With that .....off out again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38479179
The answer is NOT for liberals to let go of facts and evidence. We feel as much commitment to liberal ideals as the alt-right or hard left do to what they want. We just need to let that commitment show. You can't fight extremism successfully by being nice or by telling people they have their facts wrong. You do it by passionately arguing for what you believe in at every possible opportunity. You won't sway the real extremists - but you will provide an alternative focus for the vast mass of people currently in the middle somewhere and pull them away from the sort of dystopias SeanT is imagining.
Happy New Year, everyone
This awakening, this refusal to just accept things being handed down on tablets of stone, should be met with joy by any fan of knowledge and understanding.
So, we could argue over whether climate change is happening (just an example, I don't kow what your views are on it). But that would be arguing over interpretation of facts, not facts themselves surely? You might argue that every scientist who says they believe rising temperatures are a sign of climate change is actually a liberal who is interpreting the evidence wrongly. The people who worry me are the ones who say that the list of the 10 hottest years, most of which are very recent and include 2016, is not factual, because they don't want to believe it, so make out that it is made up by "experts".
Have to go, washing machine is beeping.
Is it? Is your machine beeping? We only have your word for it. You might be making it up to fit your agenda.
Taxation funding gives much lower admin. costs than checking if a resident has or has not paid insurance, if so has he paid enough, yes he has, so treat him, then bill him £300 then process his claim for a return of 75% or £225 ... aargh.
A friend's brother in Germany was denied 'routine' healthcare because although he was a German citizen he'd lived part of his life in the USA and didn't have enough German contributions. I think he had to pay in full for medical treatment through his 60s. He died in 2013, possibly from the financial stress, his sister thinks; she says the UK system is superior and that if we didn't overpay doctors compared to Germany it would be even more impressive.
I have followed them diligently since the Tim Adams Aberfeldy, which was phenomenal.
Some have been less spectacular, but with the Rioja you have redeemed yourself.
https://www.tesco.com/wine/product/details/default.aspx?id=268775708
Cheers!
Happy New year
What are going to be the "black swans" of 2017? Maybe:
A military clash in the Pacific between China and Japan.
A banking crisis in China resulting in the bubble finally bursting (this is a repeat forecast from each of the last 5 years).
Aggressive growth in the US making others wondering about the benefits of free trade (ignoring of course the massive internal market available to US firms) resulting in several trading blocs straining and possibly breaking up.
Merkel being beaten in Germany.
Italy leaving the Euro (another repeat).
Just maybe the Article 50 negotiations with the UK coming to an early conclusion.
http://www.australianwinecentre.co.uk/acatalog/copy_of___Tim_Adams_Wines.html
The 50-year-old was attacked in accommodation in Timelkam, Voecklamarkt in North Western Austria.
Her alleged attacker was a 22-year-old man from Afghanistan who had taken offence to the fact that the woman had been invited by Christian residents of the property to discuss the Bible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4078430/Knife-wielding-Afghan-migrant-stabs-Christian-woman-50-reading-Bible-Austrian-refugee-centre-lives.html
And yes, it's a very nice picture. Although there is a missing apostrophe.
The wild card is indeed Trump. We appear to be about to see a major US-Russia rapprochement, and I'm not sure anyone has quite thought through the implications of that. I'm sure Trump has not, and I wonder if Putin has. To some extent it's a good thing and perfectly logical - there is no longer any particular ideological divide which makes bitter rivalry sensible, and Russia is far too weak economically to pose a major financial danger. There is a risk, though, for the countries bordering Russia, some of which do not have especially attractive past or present regimes themselves and won't easily mobilise Western opinion to support them against pressure, though I think there would still be a strong reaction to any actual invasion. The Ukraine could be the next flashpoint - most West Ukrainians clealry don't want to be run by Russia, but their leadership is not acting in a way to maximise Western support. If Russia leans on them in ways short of overt invasion, I think Trump will say meh and Western Europe won't be that different.
For what it's worth, I agree with much of David Herdson's analysis. He should be terrified.
A few extra thoughts. Theresa May should be more worried about her own party than the opposition in either House. She is a poor man manager and is accumulating enemies unnecessarily. Sooner or later this will catch up with her.
Brexit negotiations will probably remain stalled for most of 2017. The EU side has no reason to hurry and Theresa May will be hoping that something turns up to improve her position.
Britain will remain a deeply divided country as Remainers remain totally unpersuaded that Brexit has any merit at all and Leavers bleat that Remainers aren't playing ball. The bickering will intensify in the absence of any forward motion on Brexit.
Shall we go then? They do not move.
The EU see the negotiations to be about the process, with talks on a post Brexit deal to follow. Our government wants the negotiations reversed. I cannot see that happening.
Tis ironic that after years of wanting opt outs, Brexiteers are now wanting opt ins. The Euro Hokey Cokey continues.
Nice win for the Foxes to end the year btw.
It's all demands, ingratitude, hands out and threats.
No thanks.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/12/davis-tops-our-final-cabinet-league-table-of-2016.html
Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in.
I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on.
I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely.
I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate.
I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy.
The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.
I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.
Undaunted, for 2017 I forecast:
2.2% growth.
An improvement in our balance of payments (albeit not by much).
Inflation to stay below 2.5%.
Base rates to stay below 1%, just.
Mortgage rates to barely move (again).
The government borrowing figures to surprise on the upside (ie better than currently forecast).
Unemployment to remain broadly static.
Wages to grow by 2% in real terms.
Slightly better growth in the EZ on the back of a more expansive policy by the ECB (possibly using Brexit as an excuse).
A builder working for me on some landscaping got blind drunk in the pub on Xmas eve, followed by a row with his wife. He can't understand the concept of drinking in moderation and with food.
Do a blind [not in that sense!] tasting of a cheap red alongside some £20, £40 ... bottles. Then buy the few cheap ones that are virtually on a par with the £20-40 ones. They don't change much in quality between years although they may go in and out of stock.
Except for older clarets and Riojas, like the Tesco one, I'm not sure any expensive reds are now worth the price. The New World reds I drank at relatives over Xmas were shockingly weak-bodied & I'm sure a bottle had cost them far more than £3.79.
I've not had the same luck with Aldi and some reds @£3.50 have been disgusting but they may have some as good as Lidl's.
The UK to manage nominal growth of about 4% (which is pretty much the same level as the last few years), but with inflation of close to 3%, that will just be around 1% in real terms.
UK unemployment to stay at around the current levels, so the psychological impact of the slowing growth will be modest.
Spain to surpass Italy in terms of PPP GDP per capita.
A modest continued recovery in the Eurozone, with GDP continuing to expand at 1.5% to 2%. Unemployment will continue to fall slowly, albeit from very high levels.
Sterling will weaken further, and our exports will not expand as much as hoped.
I'm not one to make predictions in all honesty - I think 2017 will be a typical 365-day year with a good mix of Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and other days split over a 12-month cycle starting in January and ending in December.
The days will be at their longest in June and July will be warmer than February.
Slightly more on topic, the coming rapprochement in US-Russian relations is a huge geopolitical event. The exclusion of the US and western Europe from events in Syria is significant as is the (likely) much improved personal relationship between Trump and Putin.
To these men, Europe is an irrelevant backwater whose bickering politicians are barely worth the time of day. The key players in the Trump-Putin axis will be the likes of India and Australia as counterweights to China.
That may be the message of 2017 - the growing irrelevance of Europe.