Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
Steve Baker is evidently aiming for Sydney Opera House Brexit:something so wondrous that everyone will forget the immense unbudgeted costs and the leaky roof.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:
I’ve always thought anti-gay was synonymous with Christian as some Christians keep on telling us.
Anyone who believes the Old Testament (which is where the gay bashers refer to) has the same status as the New is barely a Christian.
“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality
There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament however, The manner in which Elisha dealt with children who mocked him for his baldness, for example.
Do share. It’s been decades since I read the Book of Kings
Elisha cursed them and the Lord sent two bears to tear them to shreds - proving that God has the same sense of justice as a two-year old in a tantrum.
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
I thought a lot of it was due to the size of the 1997 rout - introducing a lot of Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win and are now 20 years older
But most of those "Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win [in 1997]" won't be MPs any more because the Tories won the seats back in 2005 and 2010? The likes of Nick Palmer, to take one local example.
It might have had a slight effect in clearing out a few Tory MPs who might have otherwise died had they remained in office (my own then-MP, Marcus Fox, is one such possible example - he actually died in 2002 but the demands of office could have hastened that) but that effect was probably relatively small - most elderly MPs by definition hold safe seats and even in a 1997-result, a party holds on to most of them.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
I hope you recognise it was a tongue-in-cheek post.
It would have been highly political in the 16th-19th Centuries.
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?
Precisely.
Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
I hope you recognise it was a tongue-in-cheek post.
It would have been highly political in the 16th-19th Centuries.
It really isn't today.
Yes, though of course the Pope used to crown the Holy Roman Emperors
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Because the economic consensus has never been wrong before.
Any economic model spits out what you want it to spit out from the economic assumptions you make going into it. Do they account for our inwards migration being more merit based? Do they account for the future being more service-based than the time period their gravity models were calibrated? Do they account for the coming structural changes caused by mass automation? Do they account for future crises from the unresolved flaws in the Eurozone?
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?
Precisely.
Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.
Indeed - even Leavers on this site forecasted "Short term pain for long term gain". They were however, rather vague on what counted as "short term". In a historical sense (and using Ireland as a comparison) short-term could be 50 years.
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
Here's what's true: Leaving the EU will increase non-tariff barriers (and, in the worst case, tariff barriers) between the UK and the EU over-and-above what they'd otherwise have been.
The question is whether or not you think the political and economic gains (long-term, looking over 5 years is pointless) make that worth it.
The EU (without the UK) constitutes 6% of global population. Whether being outwith it proves permanently detrimental to our long-term growth prospects over-and-above the growth that we'd otherwise have had within it depends upon what sort of economy, regulation and trade network we develop by 2030, how the world's geopolitics evolves in that time, and how the EU's geopolitics evolves.
FWIW, on the information we currently have, 29% UK growth for 2030 on WTO vs. 37% growth UK growth for full EU membership isn't a deal-breaker for me, and I'd have forecast our EU trade to constitute the clear minority of our trade by then under any scenario.
Remainers just spent the last 24 hours trashing the 'vassal state' nature of being in the single market without input during a short transition. Now they are arguing to do that on a permanent basis?
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
I hope you recognise it was a tongue-in-cheek post.
It would have been highly political in the 16th-19th Centuries.
It really isn't today.
Yes, though of course the Pope used to crown the Holy Roman Emperors
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:
I’ve always thought anti-gay was synonymous with Christian as some Christians keep on telling us.
Anyone who believes the Old Testament (which is where the gay bashers refer to) has the same status as the New is barely a Christian.
“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality
There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament however, The manner in which Elisha dealt with children who mocked him for his baldness, for example.
Do share. It’s been decades since I read the Book of Kings
Elisha cursed them and the Lord sent two bears to tear them to shreds - proving that God has the same sense of justice as a two-year old in a tantrum.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
I thought a lot of it was due to the size of the 1997 rout - introducing a lot of Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win and are now 20 years older
But most of those "Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win [in 1997]" won't be MPs any more because the Tories won the seats back in 2005 and 2010? The likes of Nick Palmer, to take one local example.
It might have had a slight effect in clearing out a few Tory MPs who might have otherwise died had they remained in office (my own then-MP, Marcus Fox, is one such possible example - he actually died in 2002 but the demands of office could have hastened that) but that effect was probably relatively small - most elderly MPs by definition hold safe seats and even in a 1997-result, a party holds on to most of them.
Another possible reason: the 2009-2010 expenses scandal resulted in Cameron clearing out - or them volunteering to clear out - a lot of the old Tory squirearchy in safe seats.
But, I don't know how many of them are no longer with us.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
Burgundy, incorporating much of modern day France certainly was, as was the Kingdom of Italy until 1648
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:
I’ve always thought anti-gay was synonymous with Christian as some Christians keep on telling us.
Anyone who believes the Old Testament (which is where the gay bashers refer to) has the same status as the New is barely a Christian.
“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality
There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament however, The manner in which Elisha dealt with children who mocked him for his baldness, for example.
Do share. It’s been decades since I read the Book of Kings
Elisha cursed them and the Lord sent two bears to tear them to shreds - proving that God has the same sense of justice as a two-year old in a tantrum.
If that involves some sacrifice in my wallet so I can look myself in the mirror comfortably in 15 years time so be it. I do not wish that of course, and actually I don't think that will be the case, but I sure as hell am not going to be persuaded by a graph of the last 4 quarters stats on anything.
That's a reasonable position.
I think the more significant thing about the current economic data is the success of the Eurozone. The rhetoric about it being a burning building and that we were shackled to a corpse is being shown to be entirely hollow.
This is the economy still on quantitative easing life support ten years after the crisis yet stil has 9% unemployment?
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?
Precisely.
Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.
Indeed - even Leavers on this site forecasted "Short term pain for long term gain". They were however, rather vague on what counted as "short term". In a historical sense (and using Ireland as a comparison) short-term could be 50 years.
I could be wrong (all of us can be wrong about virtually anything) but I doubt it.
Europe was the future in the 20th Century post WWII. This Century is going to be dominated by the rise of China and India, and how that geopolitics plays out in Asia, and, the one over the horizon, Africa.
The UK is very well placed to take advantage of that, but, as Robert Smithson said, it will almost entirely depend on domestic policy decisions we take.
Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.
Bearing in mind that Corbyn's Hard Labour has a smaller lead over the Tories now than Miliband had in 2012 and Kinnock had in 1990, this embryonic new Tory domestic post Brexit programme under an (eventual new leader) could be more than enough to keep Corbyn out of power. A Tory abolition of tuition fees would make it a certainty -but whether they will be wise enough to do that,who knows? Imagine a Tory budget in 2021 which abolished tuition fees. Imagine the looks on the Shadow Cabinet faces as that was announced live. Imagine John McDonnell's reaction.
Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.
Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.
Bearing in mind that Corbyn's Hard Labour has a smaller lead over the Tories now than Miliband had in 2012 and Kinnock had in 1990, this embryonic new Tory domestic post Brexit programme under an (eventual new leader) could be more than enough to keep Corbyn out of power. A Tory abolition of tuition fees would make it a certainty -but whether they will be wise enough to do that,who knows? Imagine a Tory budget in 2021 which abolished tuition fees. Imagine the looks on the Shadow Cabinet faces as that was announced live. Imagine John McDonnell's reaction.
Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.
Surely both Brown and Ed Miliband were in the supposed Labour 'mainstream' of Attlee, Wilson and Smith? It was their defeats after Blairism which enabled Corbyn, the most left-wing Labour leader since Foot
I like HYUFD, and he is an asset to this site, and at the same time I suspect this will be yet another of example of him being unable to admit he was wrong.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
I thought a lot of it was due to the size of the 1997 rout - introducing a lot of Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win and are now 20 years older
But most of those "Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win [in 1997]" won't be MPs any more because the Tories won the seats back in 2005 and 2010? The likes of Nick Palmer, to take one local example.
It might have had a slight effect in clearing out a few Tory MPs who might have otherwise died had they remained in office (my own then-MP, Marcus Fox, is one such possible example - he actually died in 2002 but the demands of office could have hastened that) but that effect was probably relatively small - most elderly MPs by definition hold safe seats and even in a 1997-result, a party holds on to most of them.
Another possible reason: the 2009-2010 expenses scandal resulted in Cameron clearing out - or them volunteering to clear out - a lot of the old Tory squirearchy in safe seats.
But, I don't know how many of them are no longer with us.
Yes, Cameron did a good job of increasing the turnover of MPs in safe seats, and many of those first elected in 2010, as in 1997, were in their 30s and 40s.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
Henry VIII did the first Brexit.
If that was anything to go by, we'll have decades of division, followed by a compromise solution, that 100% of the population will never fully by into, but more or less accept.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
Henry VIII did the first Brexit.
If that was anything to go by, we'll have decades of division, followed by a compromise solution, that 100% of the population will never fully by into, but more or less accept.
Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.
Bearing in mind that Corbyn's Hard Labour has a smaller lead over the Tories now than Miliband had in 2012 and Kinnock had in 1990, this embryonic new Tory domestic post Brexit programme under an (eventual new leader) could be more than enough to keep Corbyn out of power. A Tory abolition of tuition fees would make it a certainty -but whether they will be wise enough to do that,who knows? Imagine a Tory budget in 2021 which abolished tuition fees. Imagine the looks on the Shadow Cabinet faces as that was announced live. Imagine John McDonnell's reaction.
Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.
Surely both Brown and Ed Miliband were in the supposed Labour 'mainstream' of Attlee, Wilson and Smith? It was their defeats after Blairism which enabled Corbynism
I think Brown and Miliband each had one foot in the mainstream camp, and one foot in the Blairite camp. I wouldnt put either in the mainstream of Attlee and Wilson completely. Brown and Miliband also had grave personal failings which made them unsuitable to be PM. Brown had no personal skills, and Miliband was just a plonker. What Labour needs is a mainstream leader neither Corbynite or Balirite who is also personally fit to be a PM-and who is not a plonker like Miliband.
Do share. It’s been decades since I read the Book of Kings
Elisha cursed them and the Lord sent two bears to tear them to shreds - proving that God has the same sense of justice as a two-year old in a tantrum.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
*Shrug*
I did not write the collection of misguided folklore that passes for a divine download....
Now, me - if I was a deity - I would have made all their head hair fall out for making fun of my baldy prophet. That seems much more fitting as a punishment. As a bonus, I might have made all Elisha's hair grow back as they watched.
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Because the economic consensus has never been wrong before.
Any economic model spits out what you want it to spit out from the economic assumptions you make going into it. Do they account for our inwards migration being more merit based? Do they account for the future being more service-based than the time period their gravity models were calibrated? Do they account for the coming structural changes caused by mass automation? Do they account for future crises from the unresolved flaws in the Eurozone?
Someone else put it better than me. You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.
It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.
Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.
What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.
But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.
There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.
Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
Henry VIII did the first Brexit.
If that was anything to go by, we'll have decades of division, followed by a compromise solution, that 100% of the population will never fully by into, but more or less accept.
John really did the first Brexit.
Hexit in the 16th century was indeed followed by compromise and muddle. But remember, the puritans grew in strength and by the 1640s had their own man in power, Cromwell who executed the king.
Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.
Bearing in mind that Corbyn's Hard Labour has a smaller lead over the Tories now than Miliband had in 2012 and Kinnock had in 1990, this embryonic new Tory domestic post Brexit programme under an (eventual new leader) could be more than enough to keep Corbyn out of power. A Tory abolition of tuition fees would make it a certainty -but whether they will be wise enough to do that,who knows? Imagine a Tory budget in 2021 which abolished tuition fees. Imagine the looks on the Shadow Cabinet faces as that was announced live. Imagine John McDonnell's reaction.
Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.
Surely both Brown and Ed Miliband were in the supposed Labour 'mainstream' of Attlee, Wilson and Smith? It was their defeats after Blairism which enabled Corbynism
I think Brown and Miliband each had one foot in the mainstream camp, and one foot in the Blairite camp. I wouldnt put either in the mainstream of Attlee and Wilson completely. Brown and Miliband also had grave personal failings which made them unsuitable to be PM. Brown had no personal skills, and Miliband was just a plonker. What Labour needs is a mainstream leader neither Corbynite or Balirite who is also personally fit to be a PM-and who is not a plonker like Miliband.
There was probably little difference between Brown and Ed Miliband and Smith and Gaitskill and Callaghan and Kinnock though (all of whom lost at least one general election bar Smith) and it was the failure of a shift back to a more 'mainstream' Labour position which opened the way for the hard Left to take back the party for the first time since the early 1980s with Momentum taking over where Militant left off
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
I think the emperor Charlemagne would disagree. He ruled most of France.
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?
Precisely.
Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.
Indeed - even Leavers on this site forecasted "Short term pain for long term gain". They were however, rather vague on what counted as "short term". In a historical sense (and using Ireland as a comparison) short-term could be 50 years.
Brexit isn't about economics anyway. If it were, you'd be able to find people who would switch from leave to remain if the EU simply came up with a big enough cheque.
Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.
Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.
Surely both Brown and Ed Miliband were in the supposed Labour 'mainstream' of Attlee, Wilson and Smith? It was their defeats after Blairism which enabled Corbynism
I think Brown and Miliband each had one foot in the mainstream camp, and one foot in the Blairite camp. I wouldnt put either in the mainstream of Attlee and Wilson completely. Brown and Miliband also had grave personal failings which made them unsuitable to be PM. Brown had no personal skills, and Miliband was just a plonker. What Labour needs is a mainstream leader neither Corbynite or Balirite who is also personally fit to be a PM-and who is not a plonker like Miliband.
There was probably little difference between Brown and Ed Miliband and Smith and Gaitskill and Callaghan and Kinnock though and it was the failure of a shift back to a more 'mainstream' Labour position which opened the way for the hard Left to take back the party for the first time since the early 1980s with Momentum taking over where Militant left off
Kinnock certainly started well to the left of the others mentioned there - although he later moved to the centre. He was generally seen as being of the Soft Left - whereas Benn - and Corbyn - are from the Hard Left.
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?
Precisely.
Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.
Indeed - even Leavers on this site forecasted "Short term pain for long term gain". They were however, rather vague on what counted as "short term". In a historical sense (and using Ireland as a comparison) short-term could be 50 years.
Brexit isn't about economics anyway. If it were, you'd be able to find people who would switch from leave to remain if the EU simply came up with a big enough cheque.
Yep it was The Wild One referendum: What are you rebelling against? What've you got?
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
I think the emperor Charlemagne would disagree. He ruled most of France.
Charlemagne was 'Emperor in the West'; the Holy Roman Empire, though it retrospectively claimed descent from Charlemagne's dominion, was not really established until the mid-tenth century, by which time France was long outside its borders.
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Because the economic consensus has never been wrong before.
Any economic model spits out what you want it to spit out from the economic assumptions you make going into it. Do they account for our inwards migration being more merit based? Do they account for the future being more service-based than the time period their gravity models were calibrated? Do they account for the coming structural changes caused by mass automation? Do they account for future crises from the unresolved flaws in the Eurozone?
Someone else put it better than me. You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.
It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.
Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.
What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.
But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.
There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.
Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.
Asteroid impacts or imaginary octopuses are extremely unlikely. The coming wave of automation or continued problems with Eurozone management are near guaranteed. You are unable to deal with these arguments so you engage in immature name calling. It's pathetic but it's a mentality that we see from so many arch Remainers I am no longer surprised by it.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
I think the emperor Charlemagne would disagree. He ruled most of France.
Charlemagne was 'Emperor in the West'; the Holy Roman Empire, though it retrospectively claimed descent from Charlemagne's dominion, was not really established until the mid-tenth century, by which time France was long outside its borders.
Someone else put it better than me. You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.
It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.
Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.
What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.
But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.
There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.
Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.
Sorry but this is nonsense, almost everyone on this board believes that free trade is economically beneficial.
The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?
Precisely.
Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.
Indeed - even Leavers on this site forecasted "Short term pain for long term gain". They were however, rather vague on what counted as "short term". In a historical sense (and using Ireland as a comparison) short-term could be 50 years.
Brexit isn't about economics anyway. If it were, you'd be able to find people who would switch from leave to remain if the EU simply came up with a big enough cheque.
I’m sure there are such people. It was certainly a large issue in the campaign that the money we send to the EU could be better spend domestically. I think the Leave side wrote a catchy slogan on the side of their campaign bus.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
Burgundy, incorporating much of modern day France certainly was, as was the Kingdom of Italy until 1648
'Much of modern day France'?! Certainly, as you say, large parts of the east of modern-day France lay within the HRE's borders but it's a stretch to imply that most of it did.
Someone else put it better than me. You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.
It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.
Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.
What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.
But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.
There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.
Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.
Sorry but this is nonsense, almost everyone on this board believes that free trade is economically beneficial.
The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.
So back to trade deals with Tonga. Yay!
We already have a free trade arrangement for nearly half our exports. You are about to dismantle that and try to recreate it from scratch.
That, I'm afraid, is bonkers. By all means go the sovereignty* route, but don't be an idiot on the likely economic outcome of leaving the EU.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
Henry VIII did the first Brexit.
If that was anything to go by, we'll have decades of division, followed by a compromise solution, that 100% of the population will never fully by into, but more or less accept.
Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.
Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.
Surely both Brown and Ed Miliband were in the supposed Labour 'mainstream' of Attlee, Wilson and Smith? It was their defeats after Blairism which enabled Corbynism
I think Brown and Miliband each had one foot in the mainstream camp, and one foot in the Blairite camp. I wouldnt put either in the mainstream of Attlee and Wilson completely. Brown and Miliband also had grave personal failings which made them unsuitable to be PM. Brown had no personal skills, and Miliband was just a plonker. What Labour needs is a mainstream leader neither Corbynite or Balirite who is also personally fit to be a PM-and who is not a plonker like Miliband.
There was probably little difference between Brown and Ed Miliband and Smith and Gaitskill and Callaghan and Kinnock though and it was the failure of a shift back to a more 'mainstream' Labour position which opened the way for the hard Left to take back the party for the first time since the early 1980s with Momentum taking over where Militant left off
Kinnock certainly started well to the left of the others mentioned there - although he later moved to the centre. He was generally seen as being of the Soft Left - whereas Benn - and Corbyn - are from the Hard Left.
Hence Kinnock beat Hattersley for the leadership than a challenge from Benn after the 1987 general election defeat
The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.
On the other hand, the EU may have 6% of the population, but it has 25% of the world's GDP, the USA another 25%, China about 10% and Japan about 10%
So really, we need freer trade with the EU, USA, Japan and China. That is where the money is.
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Because the economic consensus has never been wrong before.
Any economic model spits out what you want it to spit out from the economic assumptions you make going into it. Do they account for our inwards migration being more merit based? Do they account for the future being more service-based than the time period their gravity models were calibrated? Do they account for the coming structural changes caused by mass automation? Do they account for future crises from the unresolved flaws in the Eurozone?
Someone else put it better than me. You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.
It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.
Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.
What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.
But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.
There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.
Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.
Asteroid impacts or imaginary octopuses are extremely unlikely. The coming wave of automation or continued problems with Eurozone management are near guaranteed. You are unable to deal with these arguments so you engage in immature name calling. It's pathetic but it's a mentality that we see from so many arch Remainers I am no longer surprised by it.
Guaranteed according to who? Experts? But you don’t believe in them.
And in any case, the connection between your coming wave of automation and the actual real case of the effects on wealth of trade barriers is...obscure, to be charitable.
The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.
On the other hand, the EU may have 6% of the population, but it has 25% of the world's GDP, the USA another 25%, China about 10% and Japan about 10%
So really, we need freer trade with the EU, USA, Japan and China. That is where the money is.
And it's near. Trade and distance are powerfully inversely related.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
Henry VIII did the first Brexit.
If that was anything to go by, we'll have decades of division, followed by a compromise solution, that 100% of the population will never fully by into, but more or less accept.
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.
All forecasts show a negative impact. The Cabinet Office’s The SNP’s Treasury’s The OBR’s The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.
Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.
So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?
There is good reason to rate these estimates in the medium term. The known unknowns are mostly well understood and are almost entirely downside. If you impose border controls this will have a real cost that you can estimate. Same with removing banks' financial passports. And so on. You can't model unknown unknowns. Long term, "something might turn up" is as good as it gets. Unknown unknowns aren't necessarily on the upside. Far from clawing back medium term losses, they could make them worse.
These estimates match the Treasury projections that have held up so far (early days) and third party analysis. They are all working off the same data. Saying you shouldn't believe any forecast because they are not always right is ignorant and damaging if it gets in the way of informed decision making.
My personal view is that the projections are best case for each of the scenarios. In practice there will be uncertainty and disruption that adds to these costs. My most likely outcome of EEA equivalent would only be a 2% GDP cost if the government was working systematically to that goal from June 2016, coordinating with the EU all the way. The delays, arguments and diversions to WTO and Canada+ would add significantly to that cost. It probably would end up more costly than the best case FTA, predicted to be 5%. A reversion to WTO is likely to be chaotic and and a lot more costly than the modelled 8%
Against that, I do expect the pols to aim to mitigate Brexit. The purpose of this report isn't to convince people to stay in the EU. It is to make politicians aware that their Brexit choices have consequences and provide data to inform those choices.
My central prediction within a wide band of likely outcomes is that Brexit will have a medium term cost in the high single digits %GDP. It's a real cost in jobs and welfare - it would be the equivalent of most of the healthcare budget for instance - but if people think it's a cost worth paying...
Someone else put it better than me. You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.
It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.
Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.
What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.
But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.
There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.
Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.
Sorry but this is nonsense, almost everyone on this board believes that free trade is economically beneficial.
The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.
So back to trade deals with Tonga. Yay!
We already have a free trade arrangement for nearly half our exports. You are about to dismantle that and try to recreate it from scratch.
That, I'm afraid, is bonkers. By all means go the sovereignty* route, but don't be an idiot on the likely economic outcome of leaving the EU.
*we always were, obvs.
By Tonga do you mean nations like the USA, China, India, Australia etc?
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
I think the emperor Charlemagne would disagree. He ruled most of France.
Charlemagne was 'Emperor in the West'; the Holy Roman Empire, though it retrospectively claimed descent from Charlemagne's dominion, was not really established until the mid-tenth century, by which time France was long outside its borders.
Didn’t Charlemagne split his Empire in 3 and it was the middle bit (Charles the fat?) that became the HRE
Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.
Surely both Brown and Ed Miliband were in the supposed Labour 'mainstream' of Attlee, Wilson and Smith? It was their defeats after Blairism which enabled Corbynism
There was probably little difference between Brown and Ed Miliband and Smith and Gaitskill and Callaghan and Kinnock though and it was the failure of a shift back to a more 'mainstream' Labour position which opened the way for the hard Left to take back the party for the first time since the early 1980s with Momentum taking over where Militant left off
Kinnock certainly started well to the left of the others mentioned there - although he later moved to the centre. He was generally seen as being of the Soft Left - whereas Benn - and Corbyn - are from the Hard Left.
Hence Kinnock beat Hattersley for the leadership than a challenge from Benn after the 1987 general election defeat
I did meet Kinnock once and have never forgotten the conversation.It was back in late September 1974 in the course of the October election held that year. I was living in Pembrokeshire and about to return for my second year at university.He had come down to campaign for the local Labour candidate in what was a key marginal seat, and I spent the morning doorknocking with him and a group of party workers.At lunchtime, we retired to the party HQ and I sat chatting to him over a pint. I always remember him looking me straight in the eye as he smoked away on his pipe. He asked me about my career plans, and following my reply - to the effect that I was uncertain - he said to me 'Go to the Bar Boy! That is where the money is!' I was surprised to hear this from someone who at the time was seen as a firebrand of the Left - and in the light of what happened to him subsequently it has always made me wonder as to what really 'drives' him. I doubt that Benn- Skinner - or indeed Corbyn - would have spoken in those terms.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
I'm not sure your first sentence does - those factors will apply (post-1997) more-or-less to Tories and Labour MPs alike. Your point about willingness to retire is a good one.
Yes, but there are also many more Tory MPs to Labour MPs, and they will tend to come from more marginal seats, and so be younger. Remember: the Tories only had 198 MPs up to 2010 and there's been a huge turnover within, and on top, of that number since then.
By contrast, Labour held onto well over 200 MPs in its core industrial heartlands in old WWC areas throughout that whole period, many of whom were older men who might have had more complex and chronic conditions from their working days, so the turnover has been less.
Labour had about twice as many MPs over their time in office as the Tories, but suffered 17 MPs leaving the House due to death or illness, as against 4 Tories (16-3 if you exclude accidents and deliberate acts). Since 2010, there've been 10 Labour MPs who've died in office or resigned due to ill health as against no Tories, when Labour had fewer MPs overall (9, excluding Jo Cox).
I take the point about possible industrial illnesses, though that era should be coming to something of a close now - how many MPs on any side today have a personal history in heavy industry?
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
I'm pretty sure the age of Conservative MPs entering parliament has not come down.
The difference comes from the Conservative Party under Hague being horrified by what happened 1992 to 1997.
Internally there are strong checks that MPs wanting to continue at a GE are fit enough to last the next parliament, Deo volente.
But more importantly potential candidates will not get through their PAB if there is any serious question about their health.
However, there is another check which tends to mean candidates fighting their first winnable GE are likely to be much older. They have to have some sort of a record. CCHQ tend to be fairly open minded - associations tend not to be. Most of the 1990s defections tended to be mavericks without much history and they tended to have entered parliament very young. True they are still out there and some were much older entering parliament. BUT, this has the effect of raising the age at which people first enter parliament as Con MPs.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
I'm pretty sure the age of Conservative MPs entering parliament has not come down.
The difference comes from the Conservative Party under Hague being horrified by what happened 1992 to 1997.
Internally there are strong checks that MPs wanting to continue at a GE are fit enough to last the next parliament, Deo volente.
But more importantly potential candidates will not get through their PAB if there is any serious question about their health.
However, there is another check which tends to mean candidates fighting their first winnable GE are likely to be much older. They have to have some sort of a record. CCHQ tend to be fairly open minded - associations tend not to be. Most of the 1990s defections tended to be mavericks without much history and they tended to have entered parliament very young. True they are still out there and some were much older entering parliament. BUT, this has the effect of raising the age at which people first enter parliament as Con MPs.
Really?
1992-7
Alan Howarth - entered parliament 1983 (age 39), joined Lab 1995 (aged 51). Emma Nicholson - entered parliament 1987 (age 46), joined LD 1995 (age 54). Peter Thurnham - entered parliament 1983 (age 45), joined LD 1996 (age 58). George Gardiner - entered parliament Feb 1974 (age 39), joined Ref 1997 (age 62) - Note: Gardiner had already been deselected by his local party before he defected.
1997-2001
Peter Temple-Morris - entered parliament 1974 (age 36), joined Lab 1998 (age 60) Shaun Woodward - entered parliament 1997 (age 39), joined Lab 1999 (age 41)
With the exception of Woodward, all the others had good lengths of service in Westminster behind them as an MP and all entered parliament between 36-46 - which is probably the age at which most MPs enter the House.
Comments
https://www.wired.com/story/chrome-extension-malware/
Icebrg recently highlighted four malicious extensions in the Chrome Web Store that had more than 500,000 downloads combined.
It might have had a slight effect in clearing out a few Tory MPs who might have otherwise died had they remained in office (my own then-MP, Marcus Fox, is one such possible example - he actually died in 2002 but the demands of office could have hastened that) but that effect was probably relatively small - most elderly MPs by definition hold safe seats and even in a 1997-result, a party holds on to most of them.
It would have been highly political in the 16th-19th Centuries.
It really isn't today.
Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.
Any economic model spits out what you want it to spit out from the economic assumptions you make going into it. Do they account for our inwards migration being more merit based? Do they account for the future being more service-based than the time period their gravity models were calibrated? Do they account for the coming structural changes caused by mass automation? Do they account for future crises from the unresolved flaws in the Eurozone?
The question is whether or not you think the political and economic gains (long-term, looking over 5 years is pointless) make that worth it.
The EU (without the UK) constitutes 6% of global population. Whether being outwith it proves permanently detrimental to our long-term growth prospects over-and-above the growth that we'd otherwise have had within it depends upon what sort of economy, regulation and trade network we develop by 2030, how the world's geopolitics evolves in that time, and how the EU's geopolitics evolves.
FWIW, on the information we currently have, 29% UK growth for 2030 on WTO vs. 37% growth UK growth for full EU membership isn't a deal-breaker for me, and I'd have forecast our EU trade to constitute the clear minority of our trade by then under any scenario.
Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.
But, I don't know how many of them are no longer with us.
Europe was the future in the 20th Century post WWII. This Century is going to be dominated by the rise of China and India, and how that geopolitics plays out in Asia, and, the one over the horizon, Africa.
The UK is very well placed to take advantage of that, but, as Robert Smithson said, it will almost entirely depend on domestic policy decisions we take.
Bearing in mind that Corbyn's Hard Labour has a smaller lead over the Tories now than Miliband had in 2012 and Kinnock had in 1990, this embryonic new Tory domestic post Brexit programme under an (eventual new leader) could be more than enough to keep Corbyn out of power. A Tory abolition of tuition fees would make it a certainty -but whether they will be wise enough to do that,who knows? Imagine a Tory budget in 2021 which abolished tuition fees. Imagine the looks on the Shadow Cabinet faces as that was announced live. Imagine John McDonnell's reaction.
Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.
If that was anything to go by, we'll have decades of division, followed by a compromise solution, that 100% of the population will never fully by into, but more or less accept.
I did not write the collection of misguided folklore that passes for a divine download....
Now, me - if I was a deity - I would have made all their head hair fall out for making fun of my baldy prophet. That seems much more fitting as a punishment. As a bonus, I might have made all Elisha's hair grow back as they watched.
You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.
It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.
Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.
What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.
But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.
There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.
Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.
https://twitter.com/UoLLabStudents/status/958319083430318080
The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.
Is it going to be bigger than Watergate? The suggest that the Hillary server investigation was a sham is going to be fun as well.
https://youtu.be/u8M52TPMxsA
We already have a free trade arrangement for nearly half our exports. You are about to dismantle that and try to recreate it from scratch.
That, I'm afraid, is bonkers. By all means go the sovereignty* route, but don't be an idiot on the likely economic outcome of leaving the EU.
*we always were, obvs.
So really, we need freer trade with the EU, USA, Japan and China. That is where the money is.
But you don’t believe in them.
And in any case, the connection between your coming wave of automation and the actual real case of the effects on wealth of trade barriers is...obscure, to be charitable.
These estimates match the Treasury projections that have held up so far (early days) and third party analysis. They are all working off the same data. Saying you shouldn't believe any forecast because they are not always right is ignorant and damaging if it gets in the way of informed decision making.
My personal view is that the projections are best case for each of the scenarios. In practice there will be uncertainty and disruption that adds to these costs. My most likely outcome of EEA equivalent would only be a 2% GDP cost if the government was working systematically to that goal from June 2016, coordinating with the EU all the way. The delays, arguments and diversions to WTO and Canada+ would add significantly to that cost. It probably would end up more costly than the best case FTA, predicted to be 5%. A reversion to WTO is likely to be chaotic and and a lot more costly than the modelled 8%
Against that, I do expect the pols to aim to mitigate Brexit. The purpose of this report isn't to convince people to stay in the EU. It is to make politicians aware that their Brexit choices have consequences and provide data to inform those choices.
My central prediction within a wide band of likely outcomes is that Brexit will have a medium term cost in the high single digits %GDP. It's a real cost in jobs and welfare - it would be the equivalent of most of the healthcare budget for instance - but if people think it's a cost worth paying...
New Thread
... in case no one noticedI take the point about possible industrial illnesses, though that era should be coming to something of a close now - how many MPs on any side today have a personal history in heavy industry?
The difference comes from the Conservative Party under Hague being horrified by what happened 1992 to 1997.
Internally there are strong checks that MPs wanting to continue at a GE are fit enough to last the next parliament, Deo volente.
But more importantly potential candidates will not get through their PAB if there is any serious question about their health.
However, there is another check which tends to mean candidates fighting their first winnable GE are likely to be much older. They have to have some sort of a record. CCHQ tend to be fairly open minded - associations tend not to be. Most of the 1990s defections tended to be mavericks without much history and they tended to have entered parliament very young. True they are still out there and some were much older entering parliament. BUT, this has the effect of raising the age at which people first enter parliament as Con MPs.
1992-7
Alan Howarth - entered parliament 1983 (age 39), joined Lab 1995 (aged 51).
Emma Nicholson - entered parliament 1987 (age 46), joined LD 1995 (age 54).
Peter Thurnham - entered parliament 1983 (age 45), joined LD 1996 (age 58).
George Gardiner - entered parliament Feb 1974 (age 39), joined Ref 1997 (age 62) - Note: Gardiner had already been deselected by his local party before he defected.
1997-2001
Peter Temple-Morris - entered parliament 1974 (age 36), joined Lab 1998 (age 60)
Shaun Woodward - entered parliament 1997 (age 39), joined Lab 1999 (age 41)
With the exception of Woodward, all the others had good lengths of service in Westminster behind them as an MP and all entered parliament between 36-46 - which is probably the age at which most MPs enter the House.
What a shit show that's going to be.