What I am surprised at is why when the government is going to be spending over £10bn more on the NHS and social care by 2021 than in 2015 why they don't just say this is part of the £350m a week due to Brexit net of the £40bn transitional payment for leaving with more to follow?
Probably because most people would reasonably conclude that the Brexit bonus was supposed to be "extra" to the amounts already pencilled in to deal with medical inflation and forecast demographic pressures. In order to deliver the shiny friendly queue-free health service depicted in that Leave Referendum broadcast...
Nah, you seriously overestimate people's grasp of cumulative inflation and maths. If the PM had promised £350m per week extra for the NHS by the end of 2022 in the 2017 campaign she'd have a majority. At the cost of maybe £5bn extra for the NHS, which is probably necessary and might happen anyway.
You're assuming that, even if she promised that, the public would've believed her.
I think if it was the central policy of the campaign rather than the idiotic dementia tax it would have been believed. The likes of the sun and mail would have got behind it as the "Brexit manifesto" or some such. People said that the best way to win with a government behind leave was to be the Brexit government, there was no policy as totemic as the £350m per week claim. Even looking like it was being fulfilled would have given them loads of extra votes for a minimal cost, that may even need to be met anyway. Additionally a majority government wouldn't need to piss away £1bn per year for the DUP, a saving.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
What I am surprised at is why when the government is going to be spending over £10bn more on the NHS and social care by 2021 than in 2015 why they don't just say this is part of the £350m a week due to Brexit net of the £40bn transitional payment for leaving with more to follow?
Probably because most people would reasonably conclude that the Brexit bonus was supposed to be "extra" to the amounts already pencilled in to deal with medical inflation and forecast demographic pressures. In order to deliver the shiny friendly queue-free health service depicted in that Leave Referendum broadcast...
Nah, you seriously overestimate people's grasp of cumulative inflation and maths. If the PM had promised £350m per week extra for the NHS by the end of 2022 in the 2017 campaign she'd have a majority. At the cost of maybe £5bn extra for the NHS, which is probably necessary and might happen anyway.
You're assuming that, even if she promised that, the public would've believed her.
I think if it was the central policy of the campaign rather than the idiotic dementia tax it would have been believed. The likes of the sun and mail would have got behind it as the "Brexit manifesto" or some such. People said that the best way to win with a government behind leave was to be the Brexit government, there was no policy as totemic as the £350m per week claim. Even looking like it was being fulfilled would have given them loads of extra votes for a minimal cost, that may even need to be met anyway. Additionally a majority government wouldn't need to piss away £1bn per year for the DUP, a saving.
What I am surprised at is why when the government is going to be spending over £10bn more on the NHS and social care by 2021 than in 2015 why they don't just say this is part of the £350m a week due to Brexit net of the £40bn transitional payment for leaving with more to follow?
Probably because most people would reasonably conclude that the Brexit bonus was supposed to be "extra" to the amounts already pencilled in to deal with medical inflation and forecast demographic pressures. In order to deliver the shiny friendly queue-free health service depicted in that Leave Referendum broadcast...
Nah, you seriously overestimate people's grasp of cumulative inflation and maths. If the PM had promised £350m per week extra for the NHS by the end of 2022 in the 2017 campaign she'd have a majority. At the cost of maybe £5bn extra for the NHS, which is probably necessary and might happen anyway.
You're assuming that, even if she promised that, the public would've believed her.
I think if it was the central policy of the campaign rather than the idiotic dementia tax it would have been believed. The likes of the sun and mail would have got behind it as the "Brexit manifesto" or some such. People said that the best way to win with a government behind leave was to be the Brexit government, there was no policy as totemic as the £350m per week claim. Even looking like it was being fulfilled would have given them loads of extra votes for a minimal cost, that may even need to be met anyway. Additionally a majority government wouldn't need to piss away £1bn per year for the DUP, a saving.
What I am surprised at is why when the government is going to be spending over £10bn more on the NHS and social care by 2021 than in 2015 why they don't just say this is part of the £350m a week due to Brexit net of the £40bn transitional payment for leaving with more to follow?
Probably because most people would reasonably conclude that the Brexit bonus was supposed to be "extra" to the amounts already pencilled in to deal with medical inflation and forecast demographic pressures. In order to deliver the shiny friendly queue-free health service depicted in that Leave Referendum broadcast...
Nah, you seriously overestimate people's grasp of cumulative inflation and maths. If the PM had promised £350m per week extra for the NHS by the end of 2022 in the 2017 campaign she'd have a majority. At the cost of maybe £5bn extra for the NHS, which is probably necessary and might happen anyway.
You're assuming that, even if she promised that, the public would've believed her.
I think if it was the central policy of the campaign rather than the idiotic dementia tax it would have been believed. The likes of the sun and mail would have got behind it as the "Brexit manifesto" or some such. People said that the best way to win with a government behind leave was to be the Brexit government, there was no policy as totemic as the £350m per week claim. Even looking like it was being fulfilled would have given them loads of extra votes for a minimal cost, that may even need to be met anyway. Additionally a majority government wouldn't need to piss away £1bn per year for the DUP, a saving.
+2
"£1bn per year for the DUP" Less than 3 weeks worth.
Just watching the Oscars nominations come in, and I wonder who thought that these two were the right presenters for a prestigious worldwide broadcast?? Pointless video clips, no gravitas or real humour (or apparently the ability to read seamlessly from an autocue)
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
And pro-Brexit Dyson still wants his massive £1,800,000 per year *subsidy*....
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
It's a Carillion-style dividend.
I think farmers will see their £3 billion long before the NHS sees a penny
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
And pro-Brexit Dyson still wants his massive £1,800,000 per year *subsidy*....
No doubt so do the queen and Paul Dacre ...
The UK will have to duplicate all future highly beneficial EU directives on privacy, consumer rights, environmental protection et al. Or else it'll have the work of drafting an imitation law, debating it and voting on it. That makes a huge duplication of effort for essential things on which the Council of Ministers agreed to pool sovereignty.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
It's a Carillion-style dividend.
I think farmers will see their £3 billion long before the NHS sees a penny
Isn't that already paid for in our net contributions?
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
#FinsburyPark trial: Court told terror suspect Darren Osborne received at least two direct Twitter messages from former EDL leader Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley Lennon)
The article does actually tell you what they are, so there's no need to guess.
[snip].. Additionally a majority government wouldn't need to piss away £1bn per year for the DUP, a saving.
It's £1bn over five years, not £1bn a year.
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
It's a Carillion-style dividend.
I think farmers will see their £3 billion long before the NHS sees a penny
Isn't that already paid for in our net contributions?
If you remove our net contributions, all else does not remain equal. You can't just reallocate the money as if nothing's happened.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
It's a Carillion-style dividend.
I think farmers will see their £3 billion long before the NHS sees a penny
Isn't that already paid for in our net contributions?
If you remove our net contributions, all else does not remain equal. You can't just reallocate the money as if nothing's happened.
Quite right, the UK will no longer be subsidising eastern Europe.
I believe Johnson is pretty unpopular with the great unwashed and does badly in focus groups. Doesn't mean he won't be chosen leader of course. A party that enthusiastically elects Iain Duncan Smith is capable of anything.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I'm not sure it would wash in these days of the OBR, for which we should be very grateful to the excellent Chancellor who set it up.
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I'm not sure it would wash in these days of the OBR, for which we should be very grateful to the excellent Chancellor who set it up.
Didn't seem to inhibit Corbyn or McDonnell unduly. They just kept claiming that everything was "costed" and very largely got away with it.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
It was wholly untrue for both quantity and race, since Turkey was not joining the EU. One can speculate with some confidence that the lie was told about Turkey rather than Ukraine because Ukraine is too white and too Christian.
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I'm not sure it would wash in these days of the OBR, for which we should be very grateful to the excellent Chancellor who set it up.
Didn't seem to inhibit Corbyn or McDonnell unduly. They just kept claiming that everything was "costed" and very largely got away with it.
True, but Conservative governments are held to a higher standard, and in any case no-one took the Labour manifesto seriously because no-one expected them to get anywhere near power.
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I'm not sure it would wash in these days of the OBR, for which we should be very grateful to the excellent Chancellor who set it up.
Didn't seem to inhibit Corbyn or McDonnell unduly. They just kept claiming that everything was "costed" and very largely got away with it.
Basic issue at GE17 was that nobody thought LAB had a chance so anything that was said was not subject to any scrutiny. It'll be different next time & Corbyn likes addressing mass gatherings rather than face serious questioning. If the party still has him he'll find a very different media pack
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I'm not sure it would wash in these days of the OBR, for which we should be very grateful to the excellent Chancellor who set it up.
Maybe after the election, but in the campaign it would be very easy to deflect and just repeat the same line over and over just as we did with "Long term economic plan" in 2015. "£350m per week extra by 2022", it's vague enough, it has the key figure in there and anyone who attacks it is attacking more money for the NHS.
The problem is that May, Timothy and Hill were and still are unimaginative numpties.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
Twitter's chief operating officer Anthony Noto has resigned, according to reports.
The company is yet to issue a statement, but rumours of his departure have circulated for days. On Monday, Twitter shares fell as much as 3.4% on reports Mr Noto had accepted a chief executive role at online lender Social Finance. Some analysts said his departure would be viewed as a lack of confidence in the company's turnaround efforts.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
It was wholly untrue for both quantity and race, since Turkey was not joining the EU. One can speculate with some confidence that the lie was told about Turkey rather than Ukraine because Ukraine is too white and too Christian.
Silly me, I'd have thought it was said about Turkey because Turkey was an accession nation officially joining the EU, while the Ukraine was not. Since when was Ukraine an accession nation?
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I'm not sure it would wash in these days of the OBR, for which we should be very grateful to the excellent Chancellor who set it up.
Didn't seem to inhibit Corbyn or McDonnell unduly. They just kept claiming that everything was "costed" and very largely got away with it.
Basic issue at GE17 was that nobody thought LAB had a chance so anything that was said was not subject to any scrutiny. It'll be different next time & Corbyn likes addressing mass gatherings rather than face serious questioning. If the party still has him he'll find a very different media pack
The expectations are somewhat different next time.
An identical result to last time would be seen as a good result for CON, DUP, SF, SNP and a poor one for LAB, NI Parties ex SF, DUP & the Lib Dems. Plaid would probably just about take the same result.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
It was wholly untrue for both quantity and race, since Turkey was not joining the EU. One can speculate with some confidence that the lie was told about Turkey rather than Ukraine because Ukraine is too white and too Christian.
Silly me, I'd have thought it was said about Turkey because Turkey was an accession nation officially joining the EU, while the Ukraine was not. Since when was Ukraine an accession nation?
Yes, silly you. Turkey had at no point been admitted for membership of the EU, so it was a straight lie to say that it was joining the EU. It was a lie told to stir up fears of race and religion.
O/T I'm delighted that my loathsome, and grossly dishonest boss of 20 years ago, has been struck off the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay £31,000 costs.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
Wow, all of that due to Brexit? When did Brexit happen, by the way?
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
It was wholly untrue for both quantity and race, since Turkey was not joining the EU. One can speculate with some confidence that the lie was told about Turkey rather than Ukraine because Ukraine is too white and too Christian.
Silly me, I'd have thought it was said about Turkey because Turkey was an accession nation officially joining the EU, while the Ukraine was not. Since when was Ukraine an accession nation?
In the past year Erdogan, Merkel and Verhofstadt (to name only three) have made it clearer than the clearest crystal known to science that prior to events which took place after the EU ref they unequivocally expected Turkey to join the EU in the foreseeable future. But what would they know?
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to do worse in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
It was wholly untrue for both quantity and race, since Turkey was not joining the EU. One can speculate with some confidence that the lie was told about Turkey rather than Ukraine because Ukraine is too white and too Christian.
We hear a lot about "Merkel's open door policy" but the fact that Poland actually took in more non-EU migrants last year than Germany never seems to get any coverage at all.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
It was wholly untrue for both quantity and race, since Turkey was not joining the EU. One can speculate with some confidence that the lie was told about Turkey rather than Ukraine because Ukraine is too white and too Christian.
We hear a lot about "Merkel's open door policy" but the fact that Poland actually took in more non-EU migrants last year than Germany never seems to get any coverage at all.
I thought the peak of that was in 2015 for Germany, and things have calmed down a bit?
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
£40 billion is equivalent to about 2 1/2 years of our current gross payment. I hope you are not another one if those idiots who thinks paying £15 billion a year for ever more is an argument against paying it for only 2 1/2 years.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to do worse in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
So was the Treasury forecast wrong, or very wrong?
The Treasury longterm forecast ("£4300 per family worse off") too early to tell but looks OK so far. The short term one, not good, but still not as bad the ridiculous Economists for Brexit. IMF, who published the figures I quoted here, were OK IIRC.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
It was wholly untrue for both quantity and race, since Turkey was not joining the EU. One can speculate with some confidence that the lie was told about Turkey rather than Ukraine because Ukraine is too white and too Christian.
We hear a lot about "Merkel's open door policy" but the fact that Poland actually took in more non-EU migrants last year than Germany never seems to get any coverage at all.
I thought the peak of that was in 2015 for Germany, and things have calmed down a bit?
They get a lot of Ukrainian and Belarusian immigrants now to Poland.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
Wow, all of that due to Brexit? When did Brexit happen, by the way?
The fall in the value of sterling against the Euro has been highly beneficial. It enables us to move away from being the consumer and employer of last resort to the EU.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
It was wholly untrue for both quantity and race, since Turkey was not joining the EU. One can speculate with some confidence that the lie was told about Turkey rather than Ukraine because Ukraine is too white and too Christian.
We hear a lot about "Merkel's open door policy" but the fact that Poland actually took in more non-EU migrants last year than Germany never seems to get any coverage at all.
Most of whom were people like Ukrainian plumbers, who have gone to Poland to replace the Polish plumbers who decamped to Britain.
Ukrainian tradesmen have all disappeared to either Europe or Russia, I ended up rewriring my in-laws’ place last summer as we couldn’t find anyone in Ukraine who’d do such a small job.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
£40 billion is equivalent to about 2 1/2 years of our current gross payment. I hope you are not another one if those idiots who thinks paying £15 billion a year for ever more is an argument against paying it for only 2 1/2 years.
I'm certainly not - clearly a one-off spend of £40bn to make an ongoing saving of £15bn is a superb investment and we've used similar principles to make savings in our council budget in recent years, albeit with fewer zeros.
However I'm afraid I am another one of those idiots who look at the costs we'll incur to either replicate EU agencies or pay top dollar rate for client (not partner) membership, and the money we'll end up paying to farmers and others, and fear that the £40bn will end up being an 'as well as' rather than an 'instead of' contribution.
Up to the time he made his choice he was keeping his options open but when he came out for Leave he did clearly put everything he could into winning.
... the leadership.
Winning the vote scuppered that plan.
this is not the face of a man delighted by the win. This is a man who knows he has blown his chance...
For some context, that photo was taken about 10 minutes after Cameron’s resignation speech. It would have looked wrong at that point to be too triumphal about the referendum win.
Up to the time he made his choice he was keeping his options open but when he came out for Leave he did clearly put everything he could into winning.
... the leadership.
Winning the vote scuppered that plan.
this is not the face of a man delighted by the win. This is a man who knows he has blown his chance...
For some context, that photo was taken about 10 minutes after Cameron’s resignation speech. It would have looked wrong at that point to be too triumphal about the referendum win.
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I'm not sure it would wash in these days of the OBR, for which we should be very grateful to the excellent Chancellor who set it up.
Didn't seem to inhibit Corbyn or McDonnell unduly. They just kept claiming that everything was "costed" and very largely got away with it.
Basic issue at GE17 was that nobody thought LAB had a chance so anything that was said was not subject to any scrutiny. It'll be different next time & Corbyn likes addressing mass gatherings rather than face serious questioning. If the party still has him he'll find a very different media pack
LOL, when people say Labour weren't "subject to scrutiny" in the last election, I always wonder if I was living in a parallel universe during the election campaign. Because I remember huge coverage (aka scrutiny) of Labour's policies, in particular on the morning after the manifesto first leaked, when most of the papers were screaming about "Labour going back to the 1970s". I remember the broadcast media, although obviously much more neutral than the papers, going through all sorts of cost implications of Labour's policies and usually making a comment along the lines of "whether you like the policies or not, it's indisputably a more radical prospectus than any put forward in decades". And I also remember Mrs May working "Labour's sums don't add up" and "magic money tree" into virtually every media appearance in the final few weeks.
That the "scrutiny" didn't have the Tories' desired effect on public opinion doesn't mean "scrutiny" wasn't attempted.
For some context, that photo was taken about 10 minutes after Cameron’s resignation speech. It would have looked wrong at that point to be too triumphal about the referendum win.
c.f Farage.
And why would Gisela not be happy about Cameron resigning?
Up to the time he made his choice he was keeping his options open but when he came out for Leave he did clearly put everything he could into winning.
... the leadership.
Winning the vote scuppered that plan.
this is not the face of a man delighted by the win. This is a man who knows he has blown his chance...
For some context, that photo was taken about 10 minutes after Cameron’s resignation speech. It would have looked wrong at that point to be too triumphal about the referendum win.
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
£40 billion is equivalent to about 2 1/2 years of our current gross payment. I hope you are not another one if those idiots who thinks paying £15 billion a year for ever more is an argument against paying it for only 2 1/2 years.
I'm certainly not - clearly a one-off spend of £40bn to make an ongoing saving of £15bn is a superb investment and we've used similar principles to make savings in our council budget in recent years, albeit with fewer zeros.
However I'm afraid I am another one of those idiots who look at the costs we'll incur to either replicate EU agencies or pay top dollar rate for client (not partner) membership, and the money we'll end up paying to farmers and others, and fear that the £40bn will end up being an 'as well as' rather than an 'instead of' contribution.
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I'm not sure it would wash in these days of the OBR, for which we should be very grateful to the excellent Chancellor who set it up.
Didn't seem to inhibit Corbyn or McDonnell unduly. They just kept claiming that everything was "costed" and very largely got away with it.
Basic issue at GE17 was that nobody thought LAB had a chance so anything that was said was not subject to any scrutiny. It'll be different next time & Corbyn likes addressing mass gatherings rather than face serious questioning. If the party still has him he'll find a very different media pack
LOL, when people say Labour weren't "subject to scrutiny" in the last election, I always wonder if I was living in a parallel universe during the election campaign. Because I remember huge coverage (aka scrutiny) of Labour's policies, in particular on the morning after the manifesto first leaked, when most of the papers were screaming about "Labour going back to the 1970s". And I also remember Mrs May working "Labour's sums don't add up" and "magic money tree" into virtually every media appearance in the final few weeks.
That the "scrutiny" didn't have the desired effect on public opinion doesn't mean "scrutiny" wasn't attempted.
I agree, and recent elections, both here and abroad, do show that uncosted promises are not a vote loser. Abolishing student debt, the Mexican wall and free owls spring to mind.
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it accumulates over a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably poorer than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it lasts for a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
Should have been? Who knows what would have happened last year if the vote had been different.
Up to the time he made his choice he was keeping his options open but when he came out for Leave he did clearly put everything he could into winning.
... the leadership.
Winning the vote scuppered that plan.
this is not the face of a man delighted by the win. This is a man who knows he has blown his chance...
For some context, that photo was taken about 10 minutes after Cameron’s resignation speech. It would have looked wrong at that point to be too triumphal about the referendum win.
About two hours after Dave resigned.
I’ll never forget that morning.
Two hours, really? I recall Cameron’s speech, followed immediately by Mark Carney (who’d clearly done his homework) then the Leave team speech.
Weren't there reports of a rather jubilant party behind the scenes? I think they would have been derided if they had been gloating about their victory in public in the aftermath of Cameron's resignation.
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it lasts for a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
A bit miserable. That's it. A bit less well off than otherwise we would have been. But it's all good if you are a professional on a decent six figure salary (even better if you have f*cked off out of the country and are looking upon all this from afar).
But it's all good because we will no longer have to pay artists' heirs a royalty on any work sold in UK auction houses (if we so choose to cease adhering to it).
I believe Johnson is pretty unpopular with the great unwashed and does badly in focus groups. Doesn't mean he won't be chosen leader of course. A party that enthusiastically elects Iain Duncan Smith is capable of anything.
Yes, I've never understood why middle-class commentators think Boris would be more of a hit with working-class voters than May.
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it lasts for a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
Should have been? Who knows what would have happened last year if the vote had been different.
Read my comment.
* Edit possibly a bit higher than 2.2% as world growth was revised up 0.2% 0.3% per IMF figures.
Whatever it is, it's the cost of failure by the PM to secure a majority.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
I'm not sure it would wash in these days of the OBR, for which we should be very grateful to the excellent Chancellor who set it up.
Didn't seem to inhibit Corbyn or McDonnell unduly. They just kept claiming that everything was "costed" and very largely got away with it.
Basic issue at GE17 was that nobody thought LAB had a chance so anything that was said was not subject to any scrutiny. It'll be different next time & Corbyn likes addressing mass gatherings rather than face serious questioning. If the party still has him he'll find a very different media pack
LOL, when people say Labour weren't "subject to scrutiny" in the last election, I always wonder if I was living in a parallel universe during the election campaign. Because I remember huge coverage (aka scrutiny) of Labour's policies, in particular on the morning after the manifesto first leaked, when most of the papers were screaming about "Labour going back to the 1970s". I remember the broadcast media, although obviously much more neutral than the papers, going through all sorts of cost implications of Labour's policies and usually making a comment along the lines of "whether you like the policies or not, it's indisputably a more radical prospectus than any put forward in decades". And I also remember Mrs May working "Labour's sums don't add up" and "magic money tree" into virtually every media appearance in the final few weeks.
That the "scrutiny" didn't have the Tories' desired effect on public opinion doesn't mean "scrutiny" wasn't attempted.
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it accumulates over a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably poorer than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
Let's not rule out 2.2% until all the revisions are in.
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it lasts for a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
Should have been? Who knows what would have happened last year if the vote had been different.
Read my comment.
* Edit possibly a bit higher than 2.2% as world growth was revised up 0.2% per the IMF figures.
I did, and didn’t read anything to suggest it should have been 2.2% or higher, or any other number for that matter.
Up to the time he made his choice he was keeping his options open but when he came out for Leave he did clearly put everything he could into winning.
... the leadership.
Winning the vote scuppered that plan.
this is not the face of a man delighted by the win. This is a man who knows he has blown his chance...
For some context, that photo was taken about 10 minutes after Cameron’s resignation speech. It would have looked wrong at that point to be too triumphal about the referendum win.
About two hours after Dave resigned.
I’ll never forget that morning.
Two hours, really? I recall Cameron’s speech, followed immediately by Mark Carney (who’d clearly done his homework) then the Leave team speech.
Carney was 7.30am
Dave was 8.15am*
Vote Leave’s press conference was 10am.
*I was told Dave was resigning at 7.40 am.
Dave spoke to Gove at 7.30am to congratulate him and to tell him he was going to make a statement.
Gove only found out Dave was resigning when Dave made his speech outside Downing Street.
Gove wasn’t expecting to win, is why on June 21/22nd he spent most of his time making sure no one tried to topple Dave after Remain won.
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it accumulates over a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably poorer than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
Italy's economy is about 6% smaller than it was a decade ago. I don't think that even the most pessimistic Remain-supporting economist is predicting such an outcome for the UK.
And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!
Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.
I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.
Mr. F, I'm very surprised by that Italy stat. Could've sworn I read here its economy was the exact same size as it was a decade ago. Mind you, I suppose that could be an inflationary impact, with the real terms size being smaller and the absolute size being pretty much the same.
And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!
Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.
I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.
The claim Turkey was in the process of joining was defensible. Some of what surrounded it was not.
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it accumulates over a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably poorer than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
Italy's economy is about 6% smaller than it was a decade ago. I don't think that even the most pessimistic Remain-supporting economist is predicting such an outcome for the UK.
It depends on the underlying world growth rate. The period you quote was one of little world growth that Italy underperformed. The same thing could very well happen to us in the same context if last year's 0.5% - 0.7% underperform continues. Even sinking boats lift in a rising tide however. The truth is we don't know. Will we have a long term underperform and what will the world economy look like over that period?
Mr. F, I'm very surprised by that Italy stat. Could've sworn I read here its economy was the exact same size as it was a decade ago. Mind you, I suppose that could be an inflationary impact, with the real terms size being smaller and the absolute size being pretty much the same.
Twenty years of lost growth. Even the Treasury weren’t that pessimistic
Mr. F, I'm very surprised by that Italy stat. Could've sworn I read here its economy was the exact same size as it was a decade ago. Mind you, I suppose that could be an inflationary impact, with the real terms size being smaller and the absolute size being pretty much the same.
I also think they're trying to be magnanimous in victory.
Days before Gove magnanimously stabbed his buddy in the back...
What actions you display when jostling and maneuvering to win round Tory party members in a leadership contest is very different to how you should act after winning the biggest vote in British history. I thought the official leave campaign behaved well given how emotive the debate was.
Given that it was built about race-baiting, I'm intrigued to know what you would consider a badly-behaved leave campaign. Burning down churches?
No, it wasn't. Unless you have the view that any push to control immigration is "race-baiting", which would be stupid.
The "(population 76 million)" was intended to be a frightener to the susceptible about an invasion of a Muslim horde. It cannot be understood any other way. The poster even had little footprints to reinforce the message.
Of course it can be understood another way. The issue raised by the population reference is quantity not race.
It was wholly untrue for both quantity and race, since Turkey was not joining the EU. One can speculate with some confidence that the lie was told about Turkey rather than Ukraine because Ukraine is too white and too Christian.
Silly me, I'd have thought it was said about Turkey because Turkey was an accession nation officially joining the EU, while the Ukraine was not. Since when was Ukraine an accession nation?
In the past year Erdogan, Merkel and Verhofstadt (to name only three) have made it clearer than the clearest crystal known to science that prior to events which took place after the EU ref they unequivocally expected Turkey to join the EU in the foreseeable future. But what would they know?
Indeed until the failed coup Turkey was in the process to join. Cameron too said they would and should join prior to Vote Leave making it an issue in the referendum.
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it accumulates over a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably poorer than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
Italy's economy is about 6% smaller than it was a decade ago. I don't think that even the most pessimistic Remain-supporting economist is predicting such an outcome for the UK.
It depends on the underlying world growth rate. The period you quote was one of little world growth that Italy underperformed. The same thing could very well happen to us in the same context if last year's 0.5% - 0.7% underperform continues. Even sinking boats lift in a rising tide however. The truth is we don't know. Will we have a long term underperform and what will the world economy look like over that period?
Some data to illustrate the point about the UK possibly looking like Italy:
In real terms we are not ourselves better off than we were ten years ago. If we had had a cumulative 0.5%-0.7% drag on our growth rates we would be worse off.
Up to the time he made his choice he was keeping his options open but when he came out for Leave he did clearly put everything he could into winning.
... the leadership.
Winning the vote scuppered that plan.
this is not the face of a man delighted by the win. This is a man who knows he has blown his chance...
For some context, that photo was taken about 10 minutes after Cameron’s resignation speech. It would have looked wrong at that point to be too triumphal about the referendum win.
About two hours after Dave resigned.
I’ll never forget that morning.
Two hours, really? I recall Cameron’s speech, followed immediately by Mark Carney (who’d clearly done his homework) then the Leave team speech.
Carney was 7.30am
Dave was 8.15am*
Vote Leave’s press conference was 10am.
*I was told Dave was resigning at 7.40 am.
Dave spoke to Gove at 7.30am to congratulate him and to tell him he was going to make a statement.
Gove only found out Dave was resigning when Dave made his speech outside Downing Street.
Gove wasn’t expecting to win, is why on June 21/22nd he spent most of his time making sure no one tried to topple Dave after Remain won.
Okay I’ll defer to your timings. I knew that you had a tip-off on the DC resignation.
To go back to my original point, when Boris and Gove were pictured making their statement, they weren’t in as much of a triumphant mood as one might expect, because their good friend the prime minister had not long ago announced his resignation.
And you have the audacity to moan about a number on the side of a bus being a lie!
Turkey was not joining the EU. No accession date had been set. Indeed, vast numbers of preconditions lay ahead before accession could be thought about (a Turkey that could eventually join the EU would look very different from the Turkey that existed in 2016). By the time of the referendum, it was widely understood that its application was on the back burner.
I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.
The claim Turkey was in the process of joining was defensible. Some of what surrounded it was not.
The subsequent “but of course they weren’t joining” by the Remoaners is something of beauty though.
Comments
http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/UKIPs-Isle-of-Wight-chairman-stops-byelection-campaign-after-national-criticism-of-leader-Henry-Bolton-317854.aspx
£40bn divorce fee, needing to replace (or more realistically pay client rates) Euratom, medicines agency, Galileo, farm payments, fisheries payments etc etc etc. And that's before we remember what's happened to the pound since the vote.
It's bad enough Brexiteers getting away with this unchallenged, but journalists?
+2
Less than 3 weeks worth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42788001
The UK will have to duplicate all future highly beneficial EU directives on privacy, consumer rights, environmental protection et al. Or else it'll have the work of drafting an imitation law, debating it and voting on it. That makes a huge duplication of effort for essential things on which the Council of Ministers agreed to pool sovereignty.
https://twitter.com/woodgnomology/status/955796588626108420
The article does actually tell you what they are, so there's no need to guess.
Do you not think that sending Boris to leave areas driving a bus around with £350m per week for the NHS written on the side would have been an election winning policy? I'm pretty sure it would have, much better than the dementia tax at any rate.
US slaps 'America First' tariffs on washing machines and solar panels
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42784380
So after Brexit, will we be doing this?
Probably won't be calling it 'Britain First' though...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/23/cornwall-accused-of-taxing-disability-3800-parking-fee-council-charge-bay-home-devon
(Independent/LibDem coalition, since you ask...)
Not that that forgives the epic incompetence and failure of the Conservative campaign.
The problem is that May, Timothy and Hill were and still are unimaginative numpties.
Twitter's chief operating officer Anthony Noto has resigned, according to reports.
The company is yet to issue a statement, but rumours of his departure have circulated for days. On Monday, Twitter shares fell as much as 3.4% on reports Mr Noto had accepted a chief executive role at online lender Social Finance. Some analysts said his departure would be viewed as a lack of confidence in the company's turnaround efforts.
An identical result to last time would be seen as a good result for CON, DUP, SF, SNP and a poor one for LAB, NI Parties ex SF, DUP & the Lib Dems. Plaid would probably just about take the same result.
O/T I'm delighted that my loathsome, and grossly dishonest boss of 20 years ago, has been struck off the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay £31,000 costs.
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/955476275874775041
When did Brexit happen, by the way?
Ukrainian tradesmen have all disappeared to either Europe or Russia, I ended up rewriring my in-laws’ place last summer as we couldn’t find anyone in Ukraine who’d do such a small job.
However I'm afraid I am another one of those idiots who look at the costs we'll incur to either replicate EU agencies or pay top dollar rate for client (not partner) membership, and the money we'll end up paying to farmers and others, and fear that the £40bn will end up being an 'as well as' rather than an 'instead of' contribution.
That the "scrutiny" didn't have the Tories' desired effect on public opinion doesn't mean "scrutiny" wasn't attempted.
And why would Gisela not be happy about Cameron resigning?
I’ll never forget that morning.
But it's all good because we will no longer have to pay artists' heirs a royalty on any work sold in UK auction houses (if we so choose to cease adhering to it).
* Edit possibly a bit higher than 2.2% as world growth was revised up
0.2%0.3% per IMF figures.It's a view.
Dave was 8.15am*
Vote Leave’s press conference was 10am.
*I was told Dave was resigning at 7.40 am.
Dave spoke to Gove at 7.30am to congratulate him and to tell him he was going to make a statement.
Gove only found out Dave was resigning when Dave made his speech outside Downing Street.
Gove wasn’t expecting to win, is why on June 21/22nd he spent most of his time making sure no one tried to topple Dave after Remain won.
I realise that Leavers are desperate to avoid thinking about the disgusting race-baiting which they colluded with, but facts are stubborn.
As it is, an absolute mockery of the OBR which might be 20% (£10bn) out.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-36770311
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KN?end=2016&locations=GB-IT&start=2006
In real terms we are not ourselves better off than we were ten years ago. If we had had a cumulative 0.5%-0.7% drag on our growth rates we would be worse off.
To go back to my original point, when Boris and Gove were pictured making their statement, they weren’t in as much of a triumphant mood as one might expect, because their good friend the prime minister had not long ago announced his resignation.