you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
The Bank of England is independent.
We hear a lot from various bodies about their 'independence' these days. Seems to only happen when politicians get ideas in their heads and depart from the internationalist orthodoxy.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
I am struggling to see how pointing out that our economy is doing well inside the Single Market is hardly dancing on the head of a pin. It is a statement of fact.
Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Let's ignore for a moment that the Jaguar factory is not in Solihull, the myth that UK car manufacturing is not completely dependent on components from the EU is persistent and false.
Much of the old Range Rover came in boxes from Stuttgart
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
How does Germany lowering its excessively high savings rate work? I thought interest rates were zero or negative there. Pushing on a string?
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Yes - they lied to voters. The Tories on both sides of the referendum campaign spent a lot of time doing that.
The forecasts (from NIESR IIRC) were not lies. They were forecasts. Could they have been avoided? Well we shall see. Could they be tied down to any particular short-term period, such as "immediately after the actual vote?" not sure either, hence the BoE's pre-emptive move which seemed to have kept us shopping.
The bloke on the radio this morning from Cambridge Research seemed to think that we can avoid any negative impact from leaving the single market. Well he is head of that unit and I am a PB poster so I'm sure there is some substance to his views; I'll take a (relatively less well-informed) look. It seems strange but of course welcome if that is the case.
Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Let's ignore for a moment that the Jaguar factory is not in Solihull, the myth that UK car manufacturing is not completely dependent on components from the EU is persistent and false.
Much of the old Range Rover came in boxes from Stuttgart
Well....the logistical scale of Sealion vs Barbarossa is not my judgment
But it was your judgment several posts ago, and would be presumably be the judgment of any historian that you could link to proposing that Sealion was 'by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa', and that 'the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later'.
However let's not continue, I can see this is getting tediously circular.
Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Let's ignore for a moment that the Jaguar factory is not in Solihull, the myth that UK car manufacturing is not completely dependent on components from the EU is persistent and false.
Much of the old Range Rover came in boxes from Stuttgart
Really? I'd have thought that Germans could do electrics and air suspension better then.
"Prior to Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis could have been certain that their invasion of Russia, which began on June 22, 1941, was in for a very cold winter.
It was a matter of simple statistical analysis, the kind at which Adolf Hitler's High Command was supposed to excel. But the German commissariat had hubristically not transported anything like enough woollen hats, gloves, long johns and overcoats to Russia."
We have all the supercomputers anyone could ask for dedicated to weather forecasting, and forecasts are now reliable to about 4 days out (a massive achievement, even if it doesn't sound like one, because forecasting anything is really, really difficult. So knowing anything by "simple statistical analysis" six months plus preparation time in advance is impossible now, never mind then.
What you have to realise is that expertise on any substantial question is always tentative. Like anyone with a PhD I am or have been the world's leading expert on one particularly abstruse and uninteresting topic, but I wouldn't bet the farm either on my judgment or on the consensus judgment of me plus the next 5 closest experts on the subject. And that's just consensus on the facts: consensus on a forecast (of anything) has so little value it is hardly worth attempting. Look at all the expertise poured out by (genuine) experts on steeplechasing on the National in the run up to Aintree. The result must be so clear before the race starts that there is hardly any point in running it - true or false? And if macro-economic forecasting is so easy, where are the experts' Lear jets? Banging on about Gove when he was essentially right is like repeating all those jolly funny gags about the cowardice of the French in staying out of Iraq.
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
How does Germany lowering its excessively high savings rate work? I thought interest rates were zero or negative there. Pushing on a string?
Germany has a savings and austerity culture, changing that is not going to be easy, just as changing British culture to be more thrifty wony be easy even if interest rates go up to 2%. Spending is just to ingrained in our way of life just as saving is too ingrained in German life.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
I am struggling to see how pointing out that our economy is doing well inside the Single Market is hardly dancing on the head of a pin. It is a statement of fact.
The big advantage that we seem to have post-Brexit-vote is that our currency is 10-15% devalued against others. Surely that means exports are doing well and the costs of imported raw materials haven’t worked through yet. It’s also incredibly cheap to borrow money!
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
How does Germany lowering its excessively high savings rate work? I thought interest rates were zero or negative there. Pushing on a string?
Germany has a savings and austerity culture, changing that is not going to be easy, just as changing British culture to be more thrifty wony be easy even if interest rates go up to 2%. Spending is just to ingrained in our way of life just as saving is too ingrained in German life.
If you've been in German shops you'd understand why. Customer service is, to put it politely, lacking.
Jamie Oliver’s closing restaurants as times get tougher.
Just saying.
I think we are going to have to get used to the Guardian writing the word Brexit in the headline of every business closure for the next five years.
Well known chefs trying to launch chain restaurants is a notoriously fickle business, they all find it impossible to keep the standards without the 'Name' chef actually being at the restaurant past the opening night.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
I am struggling to see how pointing out that our economy is doing well inside the Single Market is hardly dancing on the head of a pin. It is a statement of fact.
The big advantage that we seem to have post-Brexit-vote is that our currtency is 10-15% devalued against others. Surely that means exports are doing well and the costs of imported raw materials haven’t worked through yet. It’s also incredibly cheap to borrow money!
A Sterling devaluation also increases domestic demand for semi-manufactured goods at the expense or overseas importation. In countries like Germany which have extensive semi-manufactured industries this is extremely useful, in the UK where it has been gutted by poor management and high energy prices it is less so and would require tens of billions worth of investment and government sweeties to rebuild. As of now it is difficult to see companies investing tens of billions or the government being in a position to give away sweeties, but stranger things have happened and business investment is up quite a lot YoY while the government is clearly in the mood to hand out sweeties (see Nissan).
"Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.
It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.
That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.
Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
You can always ignore the truth, but it must help to be told it.
Whose truth ?
Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth.
But one can very reasonably argue that no human can know absolute truth. It is like Plato's (the original not the cat loving version on here) Theory of Forms. In this instance it is fairly obvious to all that the so called 'truths' are nothing of the sort.
Agreed, but asking 'Whose truth?' as AlsoIndigo did leads one to think that maybe anybody's 'truth' is as valuable as anybody else's. I don't accept that.
No, but in the age of mainstream media perpetrating outright falsehoods in support of their editorial line or prefered political position, it is valid to question who is actually presenting us with the truth, as opposed to what we want to hear.
Even in today's paper is as good as admitted that economists are in crisis for the inaccuracy and in many cases completely misleading claims, and these are the people that are suppose to know, so its is a fair question to ask, whose truth.
That would ease the pain for their car companies, but not result in any gain for their economy would it? Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Remainers seem to be coming back to the fact that Brexit will fail because the underlying British economy is indepted, weak and only floating along on a bubble of misplaced trust - exactly. I don't want that any more, because in our out of the EU, it would have failed at some point. Better these things are faced up to now, and without the financial drain and increasing imposition of harmonisation that the EU represents.
German consumers would have newer cars: I think they'd regard that as a gain
Ultimately, we do 'work' in order to be able to consume. From the point of view of the average voter, they want to get the maximum consumption out of the minimum amount of work. Unbalanced economies are those where there is insufficient consumption (the country piles up quantities of foreign remittances that may end up being worthless), where there is excessive consumption.
Germany falls into the former category, and we into the latter. (Indeed, we've gone from being a country where foreign assets outnumbered liabilities by 60% of GDP to one where liabilities exceed assets by 50% of GDP- and all in about 25 years.)
My point - simply - is that it is easier to formulate politically acceptable economic policy to deal with excessive levels of saving than it is to to deal with excessive levels of consumption. We are lucky that the weak level of sterling is beginning to help rebalance our economy, reducing our consumption somewhat, while boosting our export income.
If we reduce our consumption very rapidly, the economic consequences (in the short term) will be serious. Look at other economies - whether floating exchange rate or fixed - where the savings rate jumped 5-6%. The UK at the beginning of the 1990s; Spain in 2011-12.
This is not about Brexit. This is about the UK economy being fundamentally unbalanced.
Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Let's ignore for a moment that the Jaguar factory is not in Solihull, the myth that UK car manufacturing is not completely dependent on components from the EU is persistent and false.
Much of the old Range Rover came in boxes from Stuttgart
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
How does Germany lowering its excessively high savings rate work? I thought interest rates were zero or negative there. Pushing on a string?
Germany has a savings and austerity culture, changing that is not going to be easy, just as changing British culture to be more thrifty wony be easy even if interest rates go up to 2%. Spending is just to ingrained in our way of life just as saving is too ingrained in German life.
If you've been in German shops you'd understand why. Customer service is, to put it politely, lacking.
I went shopping in a German border town, Lörrach, and they were pretty friendly there but I guess they are catering for rich Swiss consumers so they have to be.
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
How does Germany lowering its excessively high savings rate work? I thought interest rates were zero or negative there. Pushing on a string?
Mortgage interest tax relief would be my preferred stimulus measure.
Jamie Oliver’s closing restaurants as times get tougher.
Just saying.
I think we are going to have to get used to the Guardian writing the word Brexit in the headline of every business closure for the next five years.
Well known chefs trying to launch chain restaurants is a notoriously fickle business, they all find it impossible to keep the standards without the 'Name' chef actually being at the restaurant past the opening night.
That would ease the pain for their car companies, but not result in any gain for their economy would it? Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Remainers seem to be coming back to the fact that Brexit will fail because the underlying British economy is indepted, weak and only floating along on a bubble of misplaced trust - exactly. I don't want that any more, because in our out of the EU, it would have failed at some point. Better these things are faced up to now, and without the financial drain and increasing imposition of harmonisation that the EU represents.
This is not about Brexit. This is about the UK economy being fundamentally unbalanced.
Should be sung from the hilltops.
Not to hijack your post, but many Brexiters think Brexit can solve all such domestic problems.
"Prior to Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis could have been certain that their invasion of Russia, which began on June 22, 1941, was in for a very cold winter.
It was a matter of simple statistical analysis, the kind at which Adolf Hitler's High Command was supposed to excel. But the German commissariat had hubristically not transported anything like enough woollen hats, gloves, long johns and overcoats to Russia."
We have all the supercomputers anyone could ask for dedicated to weather forecasting, and forecasts are now reliable to about 4 days out (a massive achievement, even if it doesn't sound like one, because forecasting anything is really, really difficult. So knowing anything by "simple statistical analysis" six months plus preparation time in advance is impossible now, never mind then.
What you have to realise is that expertise on any substantial question is always tentative. Like anyone with a PhD I am or have been the world's leading expert on one particularly abstruse and uninteresting topic, but I wouldn't bet the farm either on my judgment or on the consensus judgment of me plus the next 5 closest experts on the subject. And that's just consensus on the facts: consensus on a forecast (of anything) has so little value it is hardly worth attempting. Look at all the expertise poured out by (genuine) experts on steeplechasing on the National in the run up to Aintree. The result must be so clear before the race starts that there is hardly any point in running it - true or false? And if macro-economic forecasting is so easy, where are the experts' Lear jets? Banging on about Gove when he was essentially right is like repeating all those jolly funny gags about the cowardice of the French in staying out of Iraq.
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
-25 in Moscow today. That's bloody cold even for them! That's past the point where the engines on the grit lorries don't start, city grinds to a completely halt for a few days.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
I am struggling to see how pointing out that our economy is doing well inside the Single Market is hardly dancing on the head of a pin. It is a statement of fact.
In your case I was thinking more of your legendary arguments about the impartiality of the bbc.
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
How does Germany lowering its excessively high savings rate work? I thought interest rates were zero or negative there. Pushing on a string?
Mortgage interest tax relief would be my preferred stimulus measure.
Doesn't that enable negative gearing ?
Which is leading to asset bubbles in Melbourne and Sydney ?
That would ease the pain for their car companies, but not result in any gain for their economy would it? Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Remainers seem to be coming back to the fact that Brexit will fail because the underlying British economy is indepted, weak and only floating along on a bubble of misplaced trust - exactly. I don't want that any more, because in our out of the EU, it would have failed at some point. Better these things are faced up to now, and without the financial drain and increasing imposition of harmonisation that the EU represents.
This is not about Brexit. This is about the UK economy being fundamentally unbalanced.
Should be sung from the hilltops.
Not to hijack your post, but many Brexiters think Brexit can solve all such domestic problems.
Brexit hasn't created the problem with the UK economy, but it will expose the UK to the consequences of its parlous economic situation by putting up trading barriers and by discouraging overseas investors who have hitherto been willing to lend money to the UK.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
I am struggling to see how pointing out that our economy is doing well inside the Single Market is hardly dancing on the head of a pin. It is a statement of fact.
The big advantage that we seem to have post-Brexit-vote is that our currency is 10-15% devalued against others. Surely that means exports are doing well and the costs of imported raw materials haven’t worked through yet. It’s also incredibly cheap to borrow money!
Edited for FFS
The other big advantage is that people have still been splashing the cash and sticking stuff on their credit cards. As ever, British consumers are letting nothing get in the way of their shopping. That may change this year if inflation does creep back. And we may want to think very carefully about interest rate rises. Inflation combined with higher mortgage costs could be a pretty serious double-whammy.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Yes - they lied to voters. The Tories on both sides of the referendum campaign spent a lot of time doing that.
The forecasts (from NIESR IIRC) were not lies. They were forecasts. Could they have been avoided? Well we shall see. Could they be tied down to any particular short-term period, such as "immediately after the actual vote?" not sure either, hence the BoE's pre-emptive move which seemed to have kept us shopping.
The bloke on the radio this morning from Cambridge Research seemed to think that we can avoid any negative impact from leaving the single market. Well he is head of that unit and I am a PB poster so I'm sure there is some substance to his views; I'll take a (relatively less well-informed) look. It seems strange but of course welcome if that is the case.
They were forecasts based on a false premise - that we would do as the PM said we would do and trigger A50 as soon as Leave won.
If you've been in German shops you'd understand why. Customer service is, to put it politely, lacking.
I went shopping in a German border town, Lörrach, and they were pretty friendly there but I guess they are catering for rich Swiss consumers so they have to be.
The shops in Frankfurt and Munich have been fine - helpful assistants, chatty without being tiresomely pushy. Perhaps it depends what one wants - the American hi-I'm-Cindy-here-to-help-you style irritates me. Or on being willing to talk German?
Where do people think the most helpful and friendly assistants tend to be found? Venice was pretty good recently - I remember a girl selling me a shirt who was quite openly thrilled that she'd guessed the size right. Britain is reasonably OK now, after being pretty bad in living memory.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Yes - they lied to voters. The Tories on both sides of the referendum campaign spent a lot of time doing that.
The forecasts (from NIESR IIRC) were not lies. They were forecasts. Could they have been avoided? Well we shall see. Could they be tied down to any particular short-term period, such as "immediately after the actual vote?" not sure either, hence the BoE's pre-emptive move which seemed to have kept us shopping.
The bloke on the radio this morning from Cambridge Research seemed to think that we can avoid any negative impact from leaving the single market. Well he is head of that unit and I am a PB poster so I'm sure there is some substance to his views; I'll take a (relatively less well-informed) look. It seems strange but of course welcome if that is the case.
They were forecasts based on a false premise - that we would do as the PM said we would do and trigger A50 as soon as Leave won.
Hmm. As was pointed out upthread, a month or six isn't really going to make a big difference when the forecast was out to 2030.
That doesn't really answer my question re. Barbarossa.
In any case, the Germans didn't build invasion barges so much as steal them. Looking at Wiki, they motorised 200 existing barges with obsolete aircraft engines -
'The Kriegsmarine later used some of the motorized Sea Lion barges for landings on the Russian-held Baltic islands in 1941 and, though most of them were eventually returned to the inland rivers they originally plied, a reserve was kept for military transport duties and for filling out amphibious flotillas.'
This is hardly war effort draining stuff.
Every barge fitted out for Sealion was a barge not performing it's original duty of logistics. That translates into tons of raw materials being delayed to where they should go or needing alternate transportation.
Mebbes aye, mebbes no, but the original hypothesis was that the Germans 'built' an invasion fleet, part of an operation that was larger than Barbarossa in terms of 'men, materials, cost and prep effort', and that delayed the implementation of said Barbarossa. Cannae see it myself.
You're off by a factor of 10 on the barge conversions BTW, there were about 2500 thousand barges stripped from logistic use to prep for the invasion.
"Prior to Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis could have been certain that their invasion of Russia, which began on June 22, 1941, was in for a very cold winter.
It was a matter of simple statistical analysis, the kind at which Adolf Hitler's High Command was supposed to excel. But the German commissariat had hubristically not transported anything like enough woollen hats, gloves, long johns and overcoats to Russia."
We have all the supercomputers anyone could ask for dedicated to weather forecasting, and forecasts are now reliable to about 4 days out (a massive achievement, even if it doesn't sound like one, because forecasting anything is really, really difficult. So knowing anything by "simple statistical analysis" six months plus preparation time in advance is impossible now, never mind then.
What you have to realise is that expertise on any substantial question is always tentative. Like anyone with a PhD I am or have been the world's leading expert on one particularly abstruse and uninteresting topic, but I wouldn't bet the farm either on my judgment or on the consensus judgment of me plus the next 5 closest experts on the subject. And that's just consensus on the facts: consensus on a forecast (of anything) has so little value it is hardly worth attempting. Look at all the expertise poured out by (genuine) experts on steeplechasing on the National in the run up to Aintree. The result must be so clear before the race starts that there is hardly any point in running it - true or false? And if macro-economic forecasting is so easy, where are the experts' Lear jets? Banging on about Gove when he was essentially right is like repeating all those jolly funny gags about the cowardice of the French in staying out of Iraq.
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
IIRC, the 1941-2 winter was unusually cold but it's still conflating two different things to say that the Germans couldn't have known that would be the case, and that their preparations for winter were adequate given what they did know, which they obviously weren't (though had they done those preparations, they might well still have come undone given the exceptional nature of what they ended up facing, where not just soldiers froze but so did machinery, recoil liquids, lubricants and so on).
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
That's a nice watch. It's often said in this part of the world that everyone has a Swiss watch on his wrist, yet for some reason looks at his phone when asked the time
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
1941 was particularly cold, but yes, clearly the Germans should have considered it a reasonable contingency. I suspect the real problem is that they had one of those "We do not contemplate failure" cultures, in which it risks your career (and in that case life itself) to pipe up and say "Um, what if this takes longer than we expect and conditions turn out unfavourable?"
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
ha! You young things, you.
Yes go with a classic. Something family is perfect. Easy to feel seriously outgunned otherwise.
I was thinking of getting an Omega Speedmaster because I like the look of it but then I thought better of it because I do like the Rolex and I'd have no use for two watches. I barely wear this one.
That would ease the pain for their car companies, but not result in any gain for their economy would it? Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Remainers seem to be coming back to the fact that Brexit will fail because the underlying British economy is indepted, weak and only floating along on a bubble of misplaced trust - exactly. I don't want that any more, because in our out of the EU, it would have failed at some point. Better these things are faced up to now, and without the financial drain and increasing imposition of harmonisation that the EU represents.
This is not about Brexit. This is about the UK economy being fundamentally unbalanced.
Should be sung from the hilltops.
Not to hijack your post, but many Brexiters think Brexit can solve all such domestic problems.
Can you link to evidence for that claim or is it just wishful thinking on your part.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Yes - they lied to voters. The Tories on both sides of the referendum campaign spent a lot of time doing that.
The forecasts (from NIESR IIRC) were not lies. They were forecasts. Could they have been avoided? Well we shall see. Could they be tied down to any particular short-term period, such as "immediately after the actual vote?" not sure either, hence the BoE's pre-emptive move which seemed to have kept us shopping.
The bloke on the radio this morning from Cambridge Research seemed to think that we can avoid any negative impact from leaving the single market. Well he is head of that unit and I am a PB poster so I'm sure there is some substance to his views; I'll take a (relatively less well-informed) look. It seems strange but of course welcome if that is the case.
They were forecasts based on a false premise - that we would do as the PM said we would do and trigger A50 as soon as Leave won.
Hmm. As was pointed out upthread, a month or six isn't really going to make a big difference when the forecast was out to 2030.
I agree. But the forecasts - and the headlines they generated - were made based on a specific assumption. Osborne was talking about an emergency budget in 2016.
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
That's a nice watch. It's often said in this part of the world that everyone has a Swiss watch on his wrist, yet for some reason looks at his phone when asked the time
I do too! Though that's probably because I only wear the watch for formal occasions, job interviews and meetings with senior management. Otherwise my wrist is empty.
If you've been in German shops you'd understand why. Customer service is, to put it politely, lacking.
I went shopping in a German border town, Lörrach, and they were pretty friendly there but I guess they are catering for rich Swiss consumers so they have to be.
The shops in Frankfurt and Munich have been fine - helpful assistants, chatty without being tiresomely pushy. Perhaps it depends what one wants - the American hi-I'm-Cindy-here-to-help-you style irritates me. Or on being willing to talk German?
Where do people think the most helpful and friendly assistants tend to be found? Venice was pretty good recently - I remember a girl selling me a shirt who was quite openly thrilled that she'd guessed the size right. Britain is reasonably OK now, after being pretty bad in living memory.
I have always found Germans to be very polite and happy to serve, but then I am one of the few people who has never really encountered any trouble in France, so maybe I am just lucky. That said, I suspect that a lot of what we consider to be rudeness might be down to language and cultural differences.
Well....the logistical scale of Sealion vs Barbarossa is not my judgment
But it was precisely your judgment several posts ago, and would be presumably be the judgment of any historian that you could link to proposing that Sealion was 'by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa', and that 'the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later'.
However let's not continue, I can see this is getting tediously circular.
Mr. Isam, nonsense. Castle Morris Dancer is impervious to zombies.
There's clearly a need in the defence budget for zombie-eating octo-lemurs - just in case. If only we knew of a source for such defenders of the realm....
Maybe the zombie defence budget includes trebuchets - with which to launch themselves over the walls?
Dr. Foxinsox, sounds interesting. Most of the military-to-management books appear to be Chinese (typically Sun Tzu, but also Sun Bin, Zhuge Liang, Liu Ji and Sima Yi).
However, I agree with Mr. CD13. If we label anything from the EU as 'essential', they'll simply whack an enormous price tag on it.
Bungay's book on the Battle of Britain is also very interesting. He makes a powerful case that we won by superior planning via a flexible command system, while the Luftwaffe relied on talented mavericks who didn't co-ordinate or agree strategic objectives.
I think Keith Park was possibly the finest general we had in WW2. He fought the BoB as a STRATEGIC thing. SunZi: 'Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat'. The strategy was to survive and still be around to screw up a potential German invasion (Operation Sealion). He very very deliberately only fed in enough opposition each day to frustrate German raids but without letting RAF casualty rates get too high. He was under tremendous pressure from some of his more gung-ho colleagues (such as Leigh-Mallory) to put more planes in the air and make a big fight of it - which would have led to an early exit and defeat. The Germans on the other hand played their strategy abysmally. Didn't do nearly enough damage to radar stations (which made the RAF effort massively more efficient). Bombed London before they'd killed the RAF. They thought they were getting ahead when they weren't. They were fighting tactically. It all came to a head on Sep 15th 1940 'Eagle Day'. Goering wanted a final push to deliver a coup de grace to the RAF. Park sensed this and for the first time in nearly 3 months of bitter attritional fighting ordered an all out effort - even requesting additional squadrons from outside 11 Group - flooding the skies of southern England with fighters for the first time. The RAF did a lot of material damage that day, but not as much as you might expect. Much more importantly, they inflicted a crushing psychological blow to the Luftwaffe which simply could not believe the vast numbers of RAF fighters in the sky that day. That day the Luftwaffe realised it could not win, their own casualty rates becoming critical. Game set and match to Park. A brilliant and patient strategist who was also top notch at tactics.
Very interesting indeed - but I believe 'Eagle Day' - 'Adlertag' - was August 13th 1940.
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
That's a nice watch. It's often said in this part of the world that everyone has a Swiss watch on his wrist, yet for some reason looks at his phone when asked the time
I do too! Though that's probably because I only wear the watch for formal occasions, job interviews and meetings with senior management. Otherwise my wrist is empty.
I've got a Tag Carrera ltd edition, it's nice enough that people notice it, without constantly worrying about it. I'll guess there won't be many bare wrists at a Swiss bank.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
I am struggling to see how pointing out that our economy is doing well inside the Single Market is hardly dancing on the head of a pin. It is a statement of fact.
In your case I was thinking more of your legendary arguments about the impartiality of the bbc.
As opposed to the entirely disinterested arguments of those on the left and right who claim that it is biased, of course :-D
That would ease the pain for their car companies, but not result in any gain for their economy would it? Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Remainers seem to be coming back to the fact that Brexit will fail because the underlying British economy is indepted, weak and only floating along on a bubble of misplaced trust - exactly. I don't want that any more, because in our out of the EU, it would have failed at some point. Better these things are faced up to now, and without the financial drain and increasing imposition of harmonisation that the EU represents.
This is not about Brexit. This is about the UK economy being fundamentally unbalanced.
Should be sung from the hilltops.
Not to hijack your post, but many Brexiters think Brexit can solve all such domestic problems.
Can you link to evidence for that claim or is it just wishful thinking on your part.
It's a discussion board. I'm not linking to anything. Read some of the comments of some people on here for "evidence" (m'lud).
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
That's a nice watch. It's often said in this part of the world that everyone has a Swiss watch on his wrist, yet for some reason looks at his phone when asked the time
I do too! Though that's probably because I only wear the watch for formal occasions, job interviews and meetings with senior management. Otherwise my wrist is empty.
I've got a Tag Carrera ltd edition, it's nice enough that people notice it, without constantly worrying about it. I'll guess there won't be many bare wrists at a Swiss bank.
I'm an Omega fan - Constellation - used to like Longines. Never keen on Rolex - too big.
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
That's a nice watch. It's often said in this part of the world that everyone has a Swiss watch on his wrist, yet for some reason looks at his phone when asked the time
I do too! Though that's probably because I only wear the watch for formal occasions, job interviews and meetings with senior management. Otherwise my wrist is empty.
I've got a Tag Carrera ltd edition, it's nice enough that people notice it, without constantly worrying about it. I'll guess there won't be many bare wrists at a Swiss bank.
Yes, my uncle (a watchmaker) suggested I get a Tissot with a leather strap for everyday wear. It's a nice understated watch, the automatic ones are only £400-500 as well so it won't break the bank.
If you've been in German shops you'd understand why. Customer service is, to put it politely, lacking.
I went shopping in a German border town, Lörrach, and they were pretty friendly there but I guess they are catering for rich Swiss consumers so they have to be.
The shops in Frankfurt and Munich have been fine - helpful assistants, chatty without being tiresomely pushy. Perhaps it depends what one wants - the American hi-I'm-Cindy-here-to-help-you style irritates me. Or on being willing to talk German?
Where do people think the most helpful and friendly assistants tend to be found? Venice was pretty good recently - I remember a girl selling me a shirt who was quite openly thrilled that she'd guessed the size right. Britain is reasonably OK now, after being pretty bad in living memory.
I have always found Germans to be very polite and happy to serve, but then I am one of the few people who has never really encountered any trouble in France, so maybe I am just lucky. That said, I suspect that a lot of what we consider to be rudeness might be down to language and cultural differences.
I think that cultural factors are very important in retail. The American style of greeting the customer, can grate with Britons, and hard selling actively encourages departure.
German retail experience is typified by Lidl/Aldi. Reasonable product and good prices, efficient checkout but not much more. Limited ranges and often looks like a jumble sale. It seems Britons are increasingly OK with it, and indeed prefer it.
In terms of expectation, I have been told that there is no word for please in Chinese. Probably a fiction but it certainly appears true! African manners are often very formal and stylised.
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
1941 was particularly cold, but yes, clearly the Germans should have considered it a reasonable contingency. I suspect the real problem is that they had one of those "We do not contemplate failure" cultures, in which it risks your career (and in that case life itself) to pipe up and say "Um, what if this takes longer than we expect and conditions turn out unfavourable?"
Delaying for six weeks while the Germans bailed out Italy in the Balkans didn't help matters either.
That said, the German army could easily have stocked winter supplies without overtly appearing to contemplate failure (or not complete success), under the perfectly reasonable argument that they'd be necessary for the occupying forces after victory. It's not as if they'd have gone home as soon as Stalin threw in the towel.
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
That's a nice watch. It's often said in this part of the world that everyone has a Swiss watch on his wrist, yet for some reason looks at his phone when asked the time
I do too! Though that's probably because I only wear the watch for formal occasions, job interviews and meetings with senior management. Otherwise my wrist is empty.
I've got a Tag Carrera ltd edition, it's nice enough that people notice it, without constantly worrying about it. I'll guess there won't be many bare wrists at a Swiss bank.
Yes, my uncle (a watchmaker) suggested I get a Tissot with a leather strap for everyday wear. It's a nice understated watch, the automatic ones are only £400-500 as well so it won't break the bank.
That doesn't really answer my question re. Barbarossa.
In any case, the Germans didn't build invasion barges so much as steal them. Looking at Wiki, they motorised 200 existing barges with obsolete aircraft engines -
'The Kriegsmarine later used some of the motorized Sea Lion barges for landings on the Russian-held Baltic islands in 1941 and, though most of them were eventually returned to the inland rivers they originally plied, a reserve was kept for military transport duties and for filling out amphibious flotillas.'
This is hardly war effort draining stuff.
Every barge fitted out for Sealion was a barge not performing it's original duty of logistics. That translates into tons of raw materials being delayed to where they should go or needing alternate transportation.
Mebbes aye, mebbes no, but the original hypothesis was that the Germans 'built' an invasion fleet, part of an operation that was larger than Barbarossa in terms of 'men, materials, cost and prep effort', and that delayed the implementation of said Barbarossa. Cannae see it myself.
You're off by a factor of 10 on the barge conversions BTW, there were about 2500 thousand barges stripped from logistic use to prep for the invasion.
Having read Wiki, I'm aware of how many (mostly unpowered) barges there were. I was referring to the idea that Germany poured resources into building a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. They didn't build new barges, and converted 200 with the addition of obsolete surplus engines.
I've just done my bit for the economy and bought a bunch of new shirts and two pairs of shoes. I don't trust Swiss clothes shops.
Please don't start wearing those continental tight suits in light grey or brown and funny pointed shoes.
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
I already have funny pointed shoes and slim fit grey suits!
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
That's a nice watch. It's often said in this part of the world that everyone has a Swiss watch on his wrist, yet for some reason looks at his phone when asked the time
I do too! Though that's probably because I only wear the watch for formal occasions, job interviews and meetings with senior management. Otherwise my wrist is empty.
I've got a Tag Carrera ltd edition, it's nice enough that people notice it, without constantly worrying about it. I'll guess there won't be many bare wrists at a Swiss bank.
Yes, my uncle (a watchmaker) suggested I get a Tissot with a leather strap for everyday wear. It's a nice understated watch, the automatic ones are only £400-500 as well so it won't break the bank.
Only 4-500 quid ... jeeez
In context of an automatic Swiss watch it is the correct usage of the word "only"!
Gosh...something I agree with Plato about. I am an Omega man...Seamasters.....
Maybe in a years time or so, Plato and I agree will agree politically that it was ludicrous that someone with Trump's temperament, personality disorder, outlook should ever have come close to POTUS.
I blame GOP for not having a system for vetting out bat shit crazy candidates. Unlike Hitler which the establishment thought it could control, GOP knew Trump was off the radar uncontrollable at the start.
The only satisfaction that I will get from Trump's presidency is that he fucking trashes the Trump brand so catastrophically that anyone with any connection to it will be vilified. His family should have stopped him.
"Prior to Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis could have been certain that their invasion of Russia, which began on June 22, 1941, was in for a very cold winter.
It was a matter of simple statistical analysis, the kind at which Adolf Hitler's High Command was supposed to excel. But the German commissariat had hubristically not transported anything like enough woollen hats, gloves, long johns and overcoats to Russia."
We have all the supercomputers anyone could ask for dedicated to weather forecasting, and forecasts are now reliable to about 4 days out (a massive achievement, even if it doesn't sound like one, because forecasting anything is really, really difficult. So knowing anything by "simple statistical analysis" six months plus preparation time in advance is impossible now, never mind then.
What you have to realise is that expertise on any substantial question is always tentative. Like anyone with a PhD I am or have been the world's leading expert on one particularly abstruse and uninteresting topic, but I wouldn't bet the farm either on my judgment or on the consensus judgment of me plus the next 5 closest experts on the subject. And that's just consensus on the facts: consensus on a forecast (of anything) has so little value it is hardly worth attempting. Look at all the expertise poured out by (genuine) experts on steeplechasing on the National in the run up to Aintree. The result must be so clear before the race starts that there is hardly any point in running it - true or false? And if macro-economic forecasting is so easy, where are the experts' Lear jets? Banging on about Gove when he was essentially right is like repeating all those jolly funny gags about the cowardice of the French in staying out of Iraq.
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
The implicit claim in "simple statistical analysis, the kind at which Adolf Hitler's High Command was supposed to excel" is that some sort of expertise was involved and that claim is one you ran with when you said "It seems Hitler derided experts , who claimed to know about the Russian winter and didn't believe weather forecasters." It doesn't, as you now rightly say, take expertise to know that Russian winters are cold. Your point about Hitler and experts therefore completely falls apart.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
1941 was particularly cold, but yes, clearly the Germans should have considered it a reasonable contingency. I suspect the real problem is that they had one of those "We do not contemplate failure" cultures, in which it risks your career (and in that case life itself) to pipe up and say "Um, what if this takes longer than we expect and conditions turn out unfavourable?"
Delaying for six weeks while the Germans bailed out Italy in the Balkans didn't help matters either.
That said, the German army could easily have stocked winter supplies without overtly appearing to contemplate failure (or not complete success), under the perfectly reasonable argument that they'd be necessary for the occupying forces after victory. It's not as if they'd have gone home as soon as Stalin threw in the towel.
Barbarossa would have worked had the Soviet Union just collapsed following its launch, as the Germans expected it to.
But it didn't, and the Wehrmacht was neither large enough, nor mechanised enough, to win a protracted conflict despite its professionalism and tactical skill.
And neither was the German economy mobilised for total war either.
Not unless he wants a copyright war with China. (Incidentally you can now buy in this country incredibly cheap and useless Chinese pickups branded Great Wall).
I hadn't realised he thought "media" was singular. He would never have been elected if that had come out during the campaign.
I haven't worn a watch in years. After a bit you become skilled in working out how much time has passed. And most of the time you don't need to know the time to any great degree of accuracy. And when you do there are plenty of clocks around.
I do have though a beautiful 19th century wall clock which chimes on the hour and half hour. I wind it up with a key every weekend. The chimes are beautiful: musical and light so I love hearing them.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
Yes but there are alot of levers and methods we could have used such as the below which we simply haven't.
Does any other country in europe have our tax credit, housing benefit and NHS systems that do such a great job of encouraging immigration 'below the marginal level' ?
What a sorry story it is that Belgium has superior systems to us that discourage net non-beneficial migration.
Those 3 measures aren't the whole story of course but they would have been a step in the right direction.
Eh? When has it not been very cold in winter in Russia?
1941 was particularly cold, but yes, clearly the Germans should have considered it a reasonable contingency. I suspect the real problem is that they had one of those "We do not contemplate failure" cultures, in which it risks your career (and in that case life itself) to pipe up and say "Um, what if this takes longer than we expect and conditions turn out unfavourable?"
Delaying for six weeks while the Germans bailed out Italy in the Balkans didn't help matters either.
That said, the German army could easily have stocked winter supplies without overtly appearing to contemplate failure (or not complete success), under the perfectly reasonable argument that they'd be necessary for the occupying forces after victory. It's not as if they'd have gone home as soon as Stalin threw in the towel.
The German government did not adopt a war economy until 1942, and while equipment was good it was over complex, too many competing designs and hard to maintain. It was Speer who ramped up and standardised production, which for tanks and planes peaked in late 44 despite the massive allied bombing campaign.
The British were on a war economy from the start, so we ended the Battle of Britain with more planes than we started with, while the Luftwaffe was heavily depleted. Blitzkrieg was defeated by the attrition and industrial war, both in the Battle of Britain and in Barbarossa.
The other factor was human. The Germans started the war with many skilled pilots and tank commanders, but the casualties in these technical areas were particularly heavy and difficult to replace, in both East and West.
The Nazis gambled on a knock out blow. Both the British Empire and USSR prevailed by remaining standing despite major blows, and allowing their opponent to be exhausted. Much the same is how the Yanks prevailed in the Pacific.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Gosh...there is a quote button back. Well done for pulling out that article.
It's the same in Italy too, well sort of.
The only thing I can think of why the UK didn't implement these kind of processes for residency is that it couldn't be bothered with dealing with the complexity of it all. Mainland Europe has had a history of facism and totalitarianism so is much better equipped with complex bureaucracies that monitor people.
It's bloody annoying that our inability to get our heads around a half workable vetting procedure for residency has led to Brexit....but I think she's spot on the money.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Nothing remotely radical about that. Nor does it give a country the sort of control she thinks it does.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU. 2. Reduction of immigration from the EU. 3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
And the other side of that coin is the No to ECJ cry. Does no to ECJ oversight extend to, for example, various areas such as the UPC and other pan-European groups. Will people, Brexiters, be happy to accept ECJ oversight in selected areas as the UK continues its involvement in these initiatives, once we have left the EU? Or will every area currently under the jurisdiction of a European court be deemed an unacceptable infringement of sovereignty (of course the single market being the foremost of those)?
Incidentally did anyone else here the DUP bod on the airwaves this morning "Its only £25 million outside the budget so no big deal", storm in Arleen Foster's teacup.
Northern Irish horses must be having a tremendously warm winter.
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
Gosh...there is a quote button back. Well done for pulling out that article.
It's the same in Italy too, well sort of.
The only thing I can think of why the UK didn't implement these kind of processes for residency is that it couldn't be bothered with dealing with the complexity of it all. Mainland Europe has had a history of facism and totalitarianism so is much better equipped with complex bureaucracies that monitor people.
It's bloody annoying that our inability to get our heads around a half workable vetting procedure for residency has led to Brexit....but I think she's spot on the money.
Shame Cameron didn't promise this, or anything else he could have promised without reference to the EU, before the vote. This really was a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. But my feeling is that we would have "implemented" it via the Home Office paying several billion for a computer system which a. wouldn't work and b. would be ignored even if it did.
The other problemette is that it would involve the govt rowing back on rowing back on the Identity Cards Act 2006. Who would have guessed that Labour offered a priceless opportunity to limit immigration, and the Coalition would shut it down?
It also lists posts newest last, rather than first. Takes some getting used to, but when you do, I find it easier to catch up on the threads.
Thanks...just in the future.
Anyway, the lack of a quote button has stopped me making negative, direct responses to Brexit folk, and to people who like to post cartoon faces.....(PULPS, serial offender, the gloriously bonkers Sunil et al)
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU, I don't think so (though most likely it will be neither hard nor soft Brexit but a fudge in between)
Copeland council's Labour group leader Lena Hogg, who voted for Mr Corbyn in his successful leadership campaigns, hoped he would accept nuclear was popular locally. Pro-nukes Mrs Hogg told the Mirror: “We have got it and it's staying and people are quite happy about the fact we have had it since 1952. “It doesn't matter what people feel about it, it's not going anywhere.” Asked about suggestions he could be “sidelined” in the campaign, she added: “I really can't see anybody concentrating on anything that Jeremy Corbyn does or says.”
Local Labour councillor Bill Kirkbride believed Cumbria would be “poverty-stricken” without the nuclear industry. “Provided Jeremy Corbyn doesn't say anything negative we are all right,” he said. “ Labour Party policy regarding nuclear is written in big, luminous letters.” He added: “What Jeremy has to say on the price of cheese – well, silence is golden.”
Comments
There were *other* figures quoted, e.g. for when the UK might enter a recession, for which the date of A50 makes more sense as a necessary assumption.
Much of the old Range Rover came in boxes from Stuttgart
The bloke on the radio this morning from Cambridge Research seemed to think that we can avoid any negative impact from leaving the single market. Well he is head of that unit and I am a PB poster so I'm sure there is some substance to his views; I'll take a (relatively less well-informed) look. It seems strange but of course welcome if that is the case.
http://www.jaguar.co.uk/experience-jaguar/factory-tours/solihull.html
However let's not continue, I can see this is getting tediously circular.
Edited for FFS
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/817329823374831617
Well known chefs trying to launch chain restaurants is a notoriously fickle business, they all find it impossible to keep the standards without the 'Name' chef actually being at the restaurant past the opening night.
Even in today's paper is as good as admitted that economists are in crisis for the inaccuracy and in many cases completely misleading claims, and these are the people that are suppose to know, so its is a fair question to ask, whose truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
Ultimately, we do 'work' in order to be able to consume. From the point of view of the average voter, they want to get the maximum consumption out of the minimum amount of work. Unbalanced economies are those where there is insufficient consumption (the country piles up quantities of foreign remittances that may end up being worthless), where there is excessive consumption.
Germany falls into the former category, and we into the latter. (Indeed, we've gone from being a country where foreign assets outnumbered liabilities by 60% of GDP to one where liabilities exceed assets by 50% of GDP- and all in about 25 years.)
My point - simply - is that it is easier to formulate politically acceptable economic policy to deal with excessive levels of saving than it is to to deal with excessive levels of consumption. We are lucky that the weak level of sterling is beginning to help rebalance our economy, reducing our consumption somewhat, while boosting our export income.
If we reduce our consumption very rapidly, the economic consequences (in the short term) will be serious. Look at other economies - whether floating exchange rate or fixed - where the savings rate jumped 5-6%. The UK at the beginning of the 1990s; Spain in 2011-12.
This is not about Brexit. This is about the UK economy being fundamentally unbalanced.
I didn't say anything about Range Rovers or indeed Land Rovers. So far as I'm aware, the parts for Jaguars are made in the UK.
.@KTHopkins @somersetlevel @guardian he didn't blame #brexit in 2015 https://t.co/PXJG6tm8zx
Not to hijack your post, but many Brexiters think Brexit can solve all such domestic problems.
Bad luck if you want a different model. And no, not all of the parts are made in the UK.
http://www.xeforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2942
Which is leading to asset bubbles in Melbourne and Sydney ?
Mexico to pay in full during Trump's first term: 50/1
Mexico to make some contribution: 2/1
Mexico to make no contribution: 2/5
I imagine your watch envy will increase within a month or two, that said.
Where do people think the most helpful and friendly assistants tend to be found? Venice was pretty good recently - I remember a girl selling me a shirt who was quite openly thrilled that she'd guessed the size right. Britain is reasonably OK now, after being pretty bad in living memory.
My dad also gave me his Rolex Oyster Perpetual for my 21st birthday, so hopefully not too much envy.
Yes go with a classic. Something family is perfect. Easy to feel seriously outgunned otherwise.
.....and the bigger picture
http://www.x-rates.com/graph/?from=GBP&to=USD&amount=1
However let's not continue, I can see this is getting tediously circular.
http://rebeccataylormep.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/radical-idea-on-eu-free-movement-use.html?m=1
Regardless of your views on Brexit, read the bottom.
German retail experience is typified by Lidl/Aldi. Reasonable product and good prices, efficient checkout but not much more. Limited ranges and often looks like a jumble sale. It seems Britons are increasingly OK with it, and indeed prefer it.
In terms of expectation, I have been told that there is no word for please in Chinese. Probably a fiction but it certainly appears true! African manners are often very formal and stylised.
That said, the German army could easily have stocked winter supplies without overtly appearing to contemplate failure (or not complete success), under the perfectly reasonable argument that they'd be necessary for the occupying forces after victory. It's not as if they'd have gone home as soon as Stalin threw in the towel.
I was referring to the idea that Germany poured resources into building a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. They didn't build new barges, and converted 200 with the addition of obsolete surplus engines.
Maybe in a years time or so, Plato and I agree will agree politically that it was ludicrous that someone with Trump's temperament, personality disorder, outlook should ever have come close to POTUS.
I blame GOP for not having a system for vetting out bat shit crazy candidates. Unlike Hitler which the establishment thought it could control, GOP knew Trump was off the radar uncontrollable at the start.
The only satisfaction that I will get from Trump's presidency is that he fucking trashes the Trump brand so catastrophically that anyone with any connection to it will be vilified. His family should have stopped him.
For all the endless talk of Free Movement no-one has yet articulated whether what is wanted:-
1. Control of immigration from the EU.
2. Reduction of immigration from the EU.
3. The ability to discriminate against EU citizens - i.e. to give priority to British citizens - in relation to matters such as benefits/welfare/access to health and schools etc.
These are not the same and they imply different policies. It might be helpful if someone, possibly even in government, were to say which of these they want.
But it didn't, and the Wehrmacht was neither large enough, nor mechanised enough, to win a protracted conflict despite its professionalism and tactical skill.
And neither was the German economy mobilised for total war either.
I hadn't realised he thought "media" was singular. He would never have been elected if that had come out during the campaign.
I do have though a beautiful 19th century wall clock which chimes on the hour and half hour. I wind it up with a key every weekend. The chimes are beautiful: musical and light so I love hearing them.
Does any other country in europe have our tax credit, housing benefit and NHS systems that do such a great job of encouraging immigration 'below the marginal level' ?
What a sorry story it is that Belgium has superior systems to us that discourage net non-beneficial migration.
Those 3 measures aren't the whole story of course but they would have been a step in the right direction.
The British were on a war economy from the start, so we ended the Battle of Britain with more planes than we started with, while the Luftwaffe was heavily depleted. Blitzkrieg was defeated by the attrition and industrial war, both in the Battle of Britain and in Barbarossa.
The other factor was human. The Germans started the war with many skilled pilots and tank commanders, but the casualties in these technical areas were particularly heavy and difficult to replace, in both East and West.
The Nazis gambled on a knock out blow. Both the British Empire and USSR prevailed by remaining standing despite major blows, and allowing their opponent to be exhausted. Much the same is how the Yanks prevailed in the Pacific.
The Tortoise and the Hare writ very large.
Gosh...there is a quote button back. Well done for pulling out that article.
It's the same in Italy too, well sort of.
The only thing I can think of why the UK didn't implement these kind of processes for residency is that it couldn't be bothered with dealing with the complexity of it all. Mainland Europe has had a history of facism and totalitarianism so is much better equipped with complex bureaucracies that monitor people.
It's bloody annoying that our inability to get our heads around a half workable vetting procedure for residency has led to Brexit....but I think she's spot on the money.
It also lists posts newest last, rather than first. Takes some getting used to, but when you do, I find it easier to catch up on the threads.
http://order-order.com/2017/01/04/brexit-means-bonfire-costly-farming-regulations/
#Justsaying
Northern Irish horses must be having a tremendously warm winter.
Unbelievable incompetence.
The other problemette is that it would involve the govt rowing back on rowing back on the Identity Cards Act 2006. Who would have guessed that Labour offered a priceless opportunity to limit immigration, and the Coalition would shut it down?
Anyway, the lack of a quote button has stopped me making negative, direct responses to Brexit folk, and to people who like to post cartoon faces.....(PULPS, serial offender, the gloriously bonkers Sunil et al)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-chiefs-tell-voters-ignore-9570679
Copeland council's Labour group leader Lena Hogg, who voted for Mr Corbyn in his successful leadership campaigns, hoped he would accept nuclear was popular locally. Pro-nukes Mrs Hogg told the Mirror: “We have got it and it's staying and people are quite happy about the fact we have had it since 1952. “It doesn't matter what people feel about it, it's not going anywhere.” Asked about suggestions he could be “sidelined” in the campaign, she added: “I really can't see anybody concentrating on anything that Jeremy Corbyn does or says.”
Local Labour councillor Bill Kirkbride believed Cumbria would be “poverty-stricken” without the nuclear industry. “Provided Jeremy Corbyn doesn't say anything negative we are all right,” he said. “ Labour Party policy regarding nuclear is written in big, luminous letters.” He added: “What Jeremy has to say on the price of cheese – well, silence is golden.”