Agreed, the really scary thing is what comes after him. The zanier elements of the base will rightly conclude if we can elect DJT why would we ever need to pick a mainstream candidate ever again?
GW Bush may have been the last tradiotradi Republican president.
Traditional/moderator Republicans will not get anywhere until either a) they start to seriously address the issues that are driving voters to populists or b) the populist thing blows up spectacularly somehow.
The US is the most advanced case in the Western world, but the UK has been going in the same direction. The working class feel they are being exploited by the very rich from above and undercut by newly arriving migrants from below. The Right doesn't like addressing the first and the Left doesn't like addressing the second. Any government that visibly combines a tight immigration policy with clamping down on the corporate class would win a big landslide.
Hence in the UK we had UKIP, Brexit and Corbyn, in the USA we had Trump and Sanders, in France they have Le Pen and Melenchon, in Italy they have a coalition government between the anti austerity Five Star and the anti migration Lega Nord and in New Zealand there is a coalition government between Labour and New Zealand First
Yep. I find it enormously frustrating that my fellow social democrats refuse to acknowledge how their support for open immigration and opposition to national identity completely undermines their own electoral base. They need to read more Orwell.
Yes, social democrats are being squeezed by anti austerity populists on their left and anti migration populists on the right.
Mind you christian democrats and the establishment centre right are not doing much better and are also being hit by anti migration and nationalist populists
Yep, there’s very little chance of him voluntarily resigning, and there will need to be 16 or 17 Republican Senators turned in order to convict him on impeachment charges.
Ms. Apocalypse, any contender does need a certain number of MPs to back them, though. I'd guess a Continuity Corbyn candidate would get that, but a better informed Labour person might be able to give us a firmer answer.
Mr. F, indeed. Dying was the greatest service John ever did for England.
It's an interesting counter-factual. If Louis Capet had conquered England, (and he came very close) then he'd have become King of England. In all likelihood, Acquitaine would have accepted him as Duke in place of John, Following the death of his father, he'd have then become King of France, Duke of Normandy, and Count of Anjou and Maine, making him the most powerful European ruler by some margin. Maybe England and France would now be one country.
Out of interest, both Kathryn Warner's Edward II Blog, and Lady Despenser's Scribery are excellent online resources for medieval history.
Yes it’s true that Banks was a net drag on the result and we’d have won by more if he’d been dropped down one of his defunct mines in summer 2015 and the effort wasted dealing with him had been spent making Vote Leave much stronger earlier. From grassroots to digital, everything would have happened earlier, bigger and better but for that debilitating distraction which meant VL staff had to fight Banks and the entire Establishment simultaneously.
Agreed, the really scary thing is what comes after him. The zanier elements of the base will rightly conclude if we can elect DJT why would we ever need to pick a mainstream candidate ever again?
GW Bush may have been the last tradiotradi Republican president.
Traditional/moderator Republicans will not get anywhere until either a) they start to seriously address the issues that are driving voters to populists or b) the populist thing blows up spectacularly somehow.
The US is the most advanced case in the Western world, but the UK has been going in the same direction. The working class feel they are being exploited by the very rich from above and undercut by newly arriving migrants from below. The Right doesn't like addressing the first and the Left doesn't like addressing the second. Any government that visibly combines a tight immigration policy with clamping down on the corporate class would win a big landslide.
Hence in the UK we had UKIP, Brexit and Corbyn, in the USA we had Trump and Sanders, in France they have Le Pen and Melenchon, in Italy they have a coalition government between the anti austerity Five Star and the anti migration Lega Nord and in New Zealand there is a coalition government between Labour and New Zealand First
Yep. I find it enormously frustrating that my fellow social democrats refuse to acknowledge how their support for open immigration and opposition to national identity completely undermines their own electoral base. They need to read more Orwell.
"my fellow social democrats"
Guffaw. Your posts suggest you are one of the most rightwing Tories on this forum. There must be a massive difference between what you write and what you think.
Exhibit number 60,787 in the ongoing ‘we don’t know why we’re losing but those who disagree with us might as well go and join the Tories’ paradox.
Yes it’s true that Banks was a net drag on the result and we’d have won by more if he’d been dropped down one of his defunct mines in summer 2015 and the effort wasted dealing with him had been spent making Vote Leave much stronger earlier. From grassroots to digital, everything would have happened earlier, bigger and better but for that debilitating distraction which meant VL staff had to fight Banks and the entire Establishment simultaneously.
"Ps. Another branching history… If Cameron and Osborne had simply delayed the vote to 2017, Vote Leave would have ceased to exist in spring 2016, Banks and Farage would have been in charge with Cash/DD et al, and Remain would very likely have cruised to victory last year."
I wonder if spending 2% on Defence is keeping the UK out of the flak....
Fat chance, he has been bad mouthing St Theresa , we will get it same as rest.
PS: His pathological hatred of Germany is down to Merkel telling him as it is rather than trying the May approach of lending him her tongue. The big tangerine only likes women who fawn over him.
On Trumps polling I still like the FiveThirtyEight tracker - he is still the most unpopular President since the war, but if you extend the data view out to 4 years it looks like we are heading for the period in his term where most previous Presidential ratings tend be steadily dropping -- so if he just keeps chugging along at 40% approval by holding his base then he is going to start looking more 'normal' in a few months time when the mid-terms hit
On Trumps polling I still like the FiveThirtyEight tracker - he is still the most unpopular President since the war, but if you extend the data view out to 4 years it looks like we are heading for the period in his term where most previous Presidential ratings tend be steadily dropping -- so if he just keeps chugging along at 40% approval by holding his base then he is going to start looking more 'normal' in a few months time when the mid-terms hit
Coincidentally, Osborne's Brexit forecast predicted Q2 2018 GDP growth of 0.2%.
Aren't we always being told GDP is about to be revised upwards/ does not reflect what is happening?
Frequently it is. Construction output has been repeatedly revised upwards sharply, over the past 5 years. The double-dip recession of 2012 was found never to have happened. Recently, the ONS discovered about £10bn worth of exports for 2016, which had not been recorded etc.
On Trumps polling I still like the FiveThirtyEight tracker - he is still the most unpopular President since the war, but if you extend the data view out to 4 years it looks like we are heading for the period in his term where most previous Presidential ratings tend be steadily dropping -- so if he just keeps chugging along at 40% approval by holding his base then he is going to start looking more 'normal' in a few months time when the mid-terms hit
A rating of around 40% though still saw Reagan, Clinton and Obama's parties suffer a thumping in their first midterms
I wonder if he cares much about the mid-terms - wise heads seem to think the Senate is pretty unlikely to switch and losing the house just means he can blame everything on the Democrats ready for a massive blame game during his re-election campaign.
He seems to have worked out ways to get much of what he wants without much backing from Congress now using things like his issues of national security powers to get his tariffs stuff through without needing to involve them. It will be interesting to see just how far he can stretch the 'Imperial Presidency'
On Trumps polling I still like the FiveThirtyEight tracker - he is still the most unpopular President since the war, but if you extend the data view out to 4 years it looks like we are heading for the period in his term where most previous Presidential ratings tend be steadily dropping -- so if he just keeps chugging along at 40% approval by holding his base then he is going to start looking more 'normal' in a few months time when the mid-terms hit
Ford was actually slightly more unpopular than Trump at this stage on just 39% approval, mind you that is not much comfort to the GOP as the Democrats won their joint biggest ever midterm House landslide in 1974
Yes it’s true that Banks was a net drag on the result and we’d have won by more if he’d been dropped down one of his defunct mines in summer 2015 and the effort wasted dealing with him had been spent making Vote Leave much stronger earlier. From grassroots to digital, everything would have happened earlier, bigger and better but for that debilitating distraction which meant VL staff had to fight Banks and the entire Establishment simultaneously.
On Trumps polling I still like the FiveThirtyEight tracker - he is still the most unpopular President since the war, but if you extend the data view out to 4 years it looks like we are heading for the period in his term where most previous Presidential ratings tend be steadily dropping -- so if he just keeps chugging along at 40% approval by holding his base then he is going to start looking more 'normal' in a few months time when the mid-terms hit
Ford was actually slightly more unpopular than Trump at this stage on just 39% approval, mind you that is not much comfort to the GOP as the Democrats won their biggest ever midterm landslide in 1974
Yea and Jimmy Carter on straight Approval Rating, but he is a way off all of them on Net Approval --- I keep playing with the settings till I find one I like
On Trumps polling I still like the FiveThirtyEight tracker - he is still the most unpopular President since the war, but if you extend the data view out to 4 years it looks like we are heading for the period in his term where most previous Presidential ratings tend be steadily dropping -- so if he just keeps chugging along at 40% approval by holding his base then he is going to start looking more 'normal' in a few months time when the mid-terms hit
A rating of around 40% though still saw Reagan, Clinton and Obama's parties suffer a thumping in their first midterms
I wonder if he cares much about the mid-terms - wise heads seem to think the Senate is pretty unlikely to switch and losing the house just means he can blame everything on the Democrats ready for a massive blame game during his re-election campaign.
He seems to have worked out ways to get much of what he wants without much backing from Congress now using things like his issues of national security powers to get his tariffs stuff through without needing to involve them. It will be interesting to see just how far he can stretch the 'Imperial Presidency'
No doubt, Trump cares about Trump.
As I have said before a Trump Presidency is good for him but terrible for the GOP, the GOP risk losing control of the House and their state assemblies and governors' majority in November as well as failing to make the gains in the Senate they need as insurance for 2020 when they will be defending far more Senate seats
How much is own party as % of total, and how is that different from the past?
FPT, that might well say more about your kids’ school than it does about LA ?
They are at the local public (as in not private) elementary school. Now, granted, I live in a nice part of town, albeit nowhere near as fancy as Beverley Hills, Malibu, Bel Air, Hancock Park or even Calabasas or Westlake.
Why? It seems from your link that there are more private schools in the area than public, albeit it may be that the private schools are smaller. Does this not make the public schools less attractive in that many of the more able and driven pupils will have been drained off? That's what people contend here for grammar schools and also seems to be a bit of a problem in Edinburgh.
There are lots of private schools in my part of LA because it's near the intersections of the three most important roads in the city: the 405, the 10 and the 101. Pretty much every major LA private school is within a mile of where those freeways meet. They don't draw (much) from the local demographic.
News on the ticking time bomb, UC and tax credits (this government's attempt to blow themselves up in the manner of the poll tax):
"The reduced generosity of UC will become a live issue from next year, when we move on to the final implementation stage – moving people with existing claims from Tax Credits (and other legacy benefits) and onto Universal Credit. To ensure that this transition does not lead to families receiving less support immediately – the cliff-edge that did for George Osborne’s tax credit cuts – UC will include a Transitional Protection regime. The design and implementation of this scheme will be debated in parliament this Autumn and are likely to be the highest profile element of Universal Credit this year."
Agreed, the really scary thing is what comes after him. The zanier elements of the base will rightly conclude if we can elect DJT why would we ever need to pick a mainstream candidate ever again?
GW Bush may have been the last tradiotradi Republican president.
Traditional/moderator Republicans will not get anywhere until either a) they start to seriously address the issues that are driving voters to populists or b) the populist thing blows up spectacularly somehow.
The US is the most advanced case in the Western world, but the UK has been going in the same direction. The working class feel they are being exploited by the very rich from above and undercut by newly arriving migrants from below. The Right doesn't like addressing the first and the Left doesn't like addressing the second. Any government that visibly combines a tight immigration policy with clamping down on the corporate class would win a big landslide.
Hence in the UK we had UKIP, Brexit and Corbyn, in the USA we had Trump and Sanders, in France they have Le Pen and Melenchon, in Italy they have a coalition government between the anti austerity Five Star and the anti migration Lega Nord and in New Zealand there is a coalition government between Labour and New Zealand First
Yep. I find it enormously frustrating that my fellow social democrats refuse to acknowledge how their support for open immigration and opposition to national identity completely undermines their own electoral base. They need to read more Orwell.
"my fellow social democrats"
Guffaw. Your posts suggest you are one of the most rightwing Tories on this forum. There must be a massive difference between what you write and what you think.
Yes, right wing Tories so frequently support expanding money on the NHS, legalising drugs, raising the top rate of income tax and breaking up the banks. You are just the most exreme orthodox Corbynista so everyone seems right wing to you.
Agreed, the really scary thing is what comes after him. The zanier elements of the base will rightly conclude if we can elect DJT why would we ever need to pick a mainstream candidate ever again?
GW Bush may have been the last tradiotradi Republican president.
Traditional/moderator Republicans will not get anywhere until either a) they start to seriously address the issues that are driving voters to populists or b) the populist thing blows up spectacularly somehow.
The US is the most advanced case in the Western world, but the UK has been going in the same direction. The working class feel they are being exploited by the very rich from above and undercut by newly arriving migrants from below. The Right doesn't like addressing the first and the Left doesn't like addressing the second. Any government that visibly combines a tight immigration policy with clamping down on the corporate class would win a big landslide.
Hence in the UK we had UKIP, Brexit and Corbyn, in the USA we had Trump and Sanders, in France they have Le Pen and Melenchon, in Italy they have a coalition government between the anti austerity Five Star and the anti migration Lega Nord and in New Zealand there is a coalition government between Labour and New Zealand First
Yep. I find it enormously frustrating that my fellow social democrats refuse to acknowledge how their support for open immigration and opposition to national identity completely undermines their own electoral base. They need to read more Orwell.
"my fellow social democrats"
Guffaw. Your posts suggest you are one of the most rightwing Tories on this forum. There must be a massive difference between what you write and what you think.
Exhibit number 60,787 in the ongoing ‘we don’t know why we’re losing but those who disagree with us might as well go and join the Tories’ paradox.
Well make this number 60,788 because I would have Elliot well over to the right on the range of PB posters. If Elliot's a social democrat, JRM must be a socialist.
Coincidentally, Osborne's Brexit forecast predicted Q2 2018 GDP growth of 0.2%.
"Beast from the East bounce back"? You do realise as the quote you included that the three months ending in May includes much of the Beast from the East don't you?
One reason for sluggish growth is the disruption caused by severe weather in March
News on the ticking time bomb, UC and tax credits (this government's attempt to blow themselves up in the manner of the poll tax):
"The reduced generosity of UC will become a live issue from next year, when we move on to the final implementation stage – moving people with existing claims from Tax Credits (and other legacy benefits) and onto Universal Credit. To ensure that this transition does not lead to families receiving less support immediately – the cliff-edge that did for George Osborne’s tax credit cuts – UC will include a Transitional Protection regime. The design and implementation of this scheme will be debated in parliament this Autumn and are likely to be the highest profile element of Universal Credit this year."
UC will ensure work does pay, even just a few hours a week. No longer will you lose all your benefits from doing a few hours a week part time work. The Transitional Protection regime will also help iron out teething problems
Big difference is the UK has the tools to fight a slowdown. The Eurozone does not. They are going to ENTER the next recession with 7-8% unemployment.
I confess I STILL have no idea where Brexit is gonna end up: economically and politically. If you go on Twitter you can read lucid, articulate, apparently well-informed articles, by very intelligent people, that stretch from complete confidence that we will Leave and prosper to total confidence that Brexit is so disastrous it will inevitably be reversed and we won't even Quit.
Who to believe?
The one consistent trend is that Brexiteers, like Dan Hannan or Juliet Samuel...
... are now very concerned that we will get an ultra-Soft Brexit which is worse than EU membership. If that mood spreads across the Tory party TMay will surely be dumped.
It's just one (not entirely unexpected) trend, Sean - not 'The one consistent trend...'. As such, it carries no more weight than any other.
The one consistent trend is that Brexiteers, like Dan Hannan or Juliet Samuel...
... are now very concerned that we will get an ultra-Soft Brexit which is worse than EU membership. If that mood spreads across the Tory party TMay will surely be dumped.
That's sophistry
"My Brexit would been Brilliant. It's not my fault the Brexit we got is shit"
Every Brexiteer from now till eternity will parrot that line, and in no case will it be true.
Agreed, the really scary thing is what comes after him. The zanier elements of the base will rightly conclude if we can elect DJT why would we ever need to pick a mainstream candidate ever again?
GW Bush may have been the last tradiotradi Republican president.
Traditional/moderator Republicans will not get anywhere until either a) they start to seriously address the issues that are driving voters to populists or b) the populist thing blows up spectacularly somehow.
The US is the most advanced case in the Western world, but the UK has been going in the same direction. The working class feel they are being exploited by the very rich from above and undercut by newly arriving migrants from below. The Right doesn't like addressing the first and the Left doesn't like addressing the second. Any government that visibly combines a tight immigration policy with clamping down on the corporate class would win a big landslide.
Hence in the UK we had UKIP, Brexit and Corbyn, in the USA we had Trump and Sanders, in France they have Le Pen and Melenchon, in Italy they have a coalition government between the anti austerity Five Star and the anti migration Lega Nord and in New Zealand there is a coalition government between Labour and New Zealand First
Yep. I find it enormously frustrating that my fellow social democrats refuse to acknowledge how their support for open immigration and opposition to national identity completely undermines their own electoral base. They need to read more Orwell.
"my fellow social democrats"
Guffaw. Your posts suggest you are one of the most rightwing Tories on this forum. There must be a massive difference between what you write and what you think.
Yes, right wing Tories so frequently support expanding money on the NHS, legalising drugs, raising the top rate of income tax and breaking up the banks. You are just the most exreme orthodox Corbynista so everyone seems right wing to you.
Chortle. I am certainly not a supporter of Corbyn. Just your average centrist Joe.
Coincidentally, Osborne's Brexit forecast predicted Q2 2018 GDP growth of 0.2%.
Osborne's forecast also supplied by NIESR.
So it was the NIESR that predicted a Brexit recession, and a great surge in unemployment, and got all that totally wrong?
Just as well Mark Carney stepped in to avert or at least delay some of that nonsense.
NIESR most well known for the £2,600 diminution in wealth per household by 2030.
So the NIESR was officially predicting that as Britain went into meltdown the Bank of England would deliberately do nothing to stop any of the damage. Is that a sensible forecast?
It's like wargaming with the presumption that your enemy will do nothing to stop you attacking but will sip tea and eat cake as your tanks roll through their garden.
(And btw the prediction was £4,300, not £3,600)
Yeah I couldn't remember the numbers or even the date.
Economists typically make forecasts ceteris paribus.
News on the ticking time bomb, UC and tax credits (this government's attempt to blow themselves up in the manner of the poll tax):
"The reduced generosity of UC will become a live issue from next year, when we move on to the final implementation stage – moving people with existing claims from Tax Credits (and other legacy benefits) and onto Universal Credit. To ensure that this transition does not lead to families receiving less support immediately – the cliff-edge that did for George Osborne’s tax credit cuts – UC will include a Transitional Protection regime. The design and implementation of this scheme will be debated in parliament this Autumn and are likely to be the highest profile element of Universal Credit this year."
Big difference is the UK has the tools to fight a slowdown. The Eurozone does not. They are going to ENTER the next recession with 7-8% unemployment.
I confess I STILL have no idea where Brexit is gonna end up: economically and politically. If you go on Twitter you can read lucid, articulate, apparently well-informed articles, by very intelligent people, that stretch from complete confidence that we will Leave and prosper to total confidence that Brexit is so disastrous it will inevitably be reversed and we won't even Quit.
Who to believe?
The one consistent trend is that Brexiteers, like Dan Hannan or Juliet Samuel...
... are now very concerned that we will get an ultra-Soft Brexit which is worse than EU membership. If that mood spreads across the Tory party TMay will surely be dumped.
May knows she cannot concede on FoM and stay Tory leader and PM so it will not be ultra soft Brexit ie EEA or close to it (especially as Corbyn opposes the EEA too), the question is if we stay in a Customs Union and are able to ultimately get a Canada style FTA with the EU
As I have said before a Trump Presidency is good for him but terrible for the GOP
That sounds like it should be true, but it seems like the generic ballot has been getting better since the media has been talking about Trumpy things like Stormy Daniels and trade wars and putting immigrant children in cages, as opposed to GOP things like tax cuts and repealing ObamaCare.
Obviously they'd have a better shot at the midterms if Hillary Clinton was president, but the GOP agenda seems to be unpopular even among GOP voters, whereas the Trump agenda is at least popular among its own constituency.
Coincidentally, Osborne's Brexit forecast predicted Q2 2018 GDP growth of 0.2%.
Osborne's forecast also supplied by NIESR.
So it was the NIESR that predicted a Brexit recession, and a great surge in unemployment, and got all that totally wrong?
Just as well Mark Carney stepped in to avert or at least delay some of that nonsense.
NIESR most well known for the £2,600 diminution in wealth per household by 2030.
So the NIESR was officially predicting that as Britain went into meltdown the Bank of England would deliberately do nothing to stop any of the damage. Is that a sensible forecast?
It's like wargaming with the presumption that your enemy will do nothing to stop you attacking but will sip tea and eat cake as your tanks roll through their garden.
(And btw the prediction was £4,300, not £3,600)
Yeah I couldn't remember the numbers or even the date.
Economists typically make forecasts ceteris paribus.
Not if they use general equilibrium (mutatis mutandum) models or macroeconomic models with interacting sectors.
Weren't we saved from the recession by a devaluation of the pound. orchestrated by the Bank of England?
QTWAIN. The Bank of England reduction in rates was a pathetically tiny 0.25% which has already been reversed.
Criticising Mark Carney for his rate cut decision is exactly analagous to criticising Tyson Fury for fighting some past it boxing promoter in his first fight after a long lay off.
Carney was sending a signal to the market. I won't again use the analogy of the Fed in 1987 or @Charles will tell me that monetary policy doesn't provide liquidity to the banks (which indeed it doesn't). But it is a good analogy. He was saying: "I've got this, I'm ready to do what needs to be done and here's a bit of action to accompany the words."
(Fury, meanwhile, used the fight to get himself back into the process of fighting again - camp, prep, training, media, press conferences, etc - what happened in the ring was neither here nor there.)
Coincidentally, Osborne's Brexit forecast predicted Q2 2018 GDP growth of 0.2%.
Osborne's forecast also supplied by NIESR.
So it was the NIESR that predicted a Brexit recession, and a great surge in unemployment, and got all that totally wrong?
Just as well Mark Carney stepped in to avert or at least delay some of that nonsense.
NIESR most well known for the £2,600 diminution in wealth per household by 2030.
So the NIESR was officially predicting that as Britain went into meltdown the Bank of England would deliberately do nothing to stop any of the damage. Is that a sensible forecast?
It's like wargaming with the presumption that your enemy will do nothing to stop you attacking but will sip tea and eat cake as your tanks roll through their garden.
(And btw the prediction was £4,300, not £3,600)
Yeah I couldn't remember the numbers or even the date.
Economists typically make forecasts ceteris paribus.
Not if they use general equilibrium (mutatis mutandum) models or macroeconomic models with interacting sectors.
Forecasting the reaction of a Central Bank is not often included in forecasts except in the scenarios that follow the central forecast.
Big difference is the UK has the tools to fight a slowdown. The Eurozone does not. They are going to ENTER the next recession with 7-8% unemployment.
Not sure about that. We can’t cut interest rates materially, we can’t really boost government spending standing our current deficit and high debt levels, we are not in a position to boost consumption given the high levels of personal debt, after 7 years of relative austerity actual cuts in public spending would seriously hurt and we still have a frightening trade deficit. Any U.K. government trying to deal with a recession is going to have a hell of a time. We are a long, long way from recovering from the last one.
As I have said before a Trump Presidency is good for him but terrible for the GOP
That sounds like it should be true, but it seems like the generic ballot has been getting better since the media has been talking about Trumpy things like Stormy Daniels and trade wars and putting immigrant children in cages, as opposed to GOP things like tax cuts and repealing ObamaCare.
Obviously they'd have a better shot at the midterms if Hillary Clinton was president, but the GOP agenda seems to be unpopular even among GOP voters, whereas the Trump agenda is at least popular among its own constituency.
The Democrats are back to a 7% lead in the latest generic ballot.
The trade wars issue has hit the GOP, especially with Independents, while Trump voters are annoyed with the lack of support from establishment Republicans like Ryan for the tariffs and may stay at home in November rather than vote for establishment GOP candidates
Coincidentally, Osborne's Brexit forecast predicted Q2 2018 GDP growth of 0.2%.
Osborne's forecast also supplied by NIESR.
So it was the NIESR that predicted a Brexit recession, and a great surge in unemployment, and got all that totally wrong?
Just as well Mark Carney stepped in to avert or at least delay some of that nonsense.
NIESR most well known for the £2,600 diminution in wealth per household by 2030.
So the NIESR was officially predicting that as Britain went into meltdown the Bank of England would deliberately do nothing to stop any of the damage. Is that a sensible forecast?
It's like wargaming with the presumption that your enemy will do nothing to stop you attacking but will sip tea and eat cake as your tanks roll through their garden.
(And btw the prediction was £4,300, not £3,600)
Yeah I couldn't remember the numbers or even the date.
Economists typically make forecasts ceteris paribus.
Not if they use general equilibrium (mutatis mutandum) models or macroeconomic models with interacting sectors.
Forecasting the reaction of a Central Bank is not often included in forecasts except in the scenarios that follow the central forecast.
Official models usually take policies as given. That also include the NIESR. Some private forecasters make use of Central Bank reaction functions (e.g. Taylor rules).
As I have said before a Trump Presidency is good for him but terrible for the GOP
That sounds like it should be true, but it seems like the generic ballot has been getting better since the media has been talking about Trumpy things like Stormy Daniels and trade wars and putting immigrant children in cages, as opposed to GOP things like tax cuts and repealing ObamaCare.
Obviously they'd have a better shot at the midterms if Hillary Clinton was president, but the GOP agenda seems to be unpopular even among GOP voters, whereas the Trump agenda is at least popular among its own constituency.
The generic ballot looks like its moving back to the Democrats at the moment, but its not really a very trusted tool is it? Probably all be up in the air after tomorrow when DT delivers world peace or punches the other guy on the nose depending on his mood
Weren't we saved from the recession by a devaluation of the pound. orchestrated by the Bank of England?
QTWAIN. The Bank of England reduction in rates was a pathetically tiny 0.25% which has already been reversed.
"The pound’s fall, which stunned investors, was its biggest ever one-day fall, and ranked with the reaction to the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 and Britain’s exit in 1992 from the European exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday." You only mention interest rates - that's only part of it.
Weren't we saved from the recession by a devaluation of the pound. orchestrated by the Bank of England?
QTWAIN. The Bank of England reduction in rates was a pathetically tiny 0.25% which has already been reversed.
Criticising Mark Carney for his rate cut decision is exactly analagous to criticising Tyson Fury for fighting some past it boxing promoter in his first fight after a long lay off.
Carney was sending a signal to the market. I won't again use the analogy of the Fed in 1987 or @Charles will tell me that monetary policy doesn't provide liquidity to the banks (which indeed it doesn't). But it is a good analogy. He was saying: "I've got this, I'm ready to do what needs to be done and here's a bit of action to accompany the words."
(Fury, meanwhile, used the fight to get himself back into the process of fighting again - camp, prep, training, media, press conferences, etc - what happened in the ring was neither here nor there.)
And opening the liquidity window was sufficient for the market
Weren't we saved from the recession by a devaluation of the pound. orchestrated by the Bank of England?
QTWAIN. The Bank of England reduction in rates was a pathetically tiny 0.25% which has already been reversed.
Criticising Mark Carney for his rate cut decision is exactly analagous to criticising Tyson Fury for fighting some past it boxing promoter in his first fight after a long lay off.
Carney was sending a signal to the market. I won't again use the analogy of the Fed in 1987 or @Charles will tell me that monetary policy doesn't provide liquidity to the banks (which indeed it doesn't). But it is a good analogy. He was saying: "I've got this, I'm ready to do what needs to be done and here's a bit of action to accompany the words."
(Fury, meanwhile, used the fight to get himself back into the process of fighting again - camp, prep, training, media, press conferences, etc - what happened in the ring was neither here nor there.)
Except nothing needed to be done and the Bank being willing to do what was needed should have been blindingly obvious to all pre-referendum. Was it a shock to you than we have an independent Bank?
In a phone-in on London radio station LBC he told a concerned caller from the Kent town that he had no need to worry.
“The delays will not be at Dover, they will be at Calais,” Rees-Mogg told him, claiming that the French would have to conducts checks under EU law, but the UK would not as it would have taken back control of its borders.
That's fine then. The backlog of goods in limbo waiting to get checked into France will presumably just be held hovering above the channel.
Weren't we saved from the recession by a devaluation of the pound. orchestrated by the Bank of England?
QTWAIN. The Bank of England reduction in rates was a pathetically tiny 0.25% which has already been reversed.
Criticising Mark Carney for his rate cut decision is exactly analagous to criticising Tyson Fury for fighting some past it boxing promoter in his first fight after a long lay off.
Carney was sending a signal to the market. I won't again use the analogy of the Fed in 1987 or @Charles will tell me that monetary policy doesn't provide liquidity to the banks (which indeed it doesn't). But it is a good analogy. He was saying: "I've got this, I'm ready to do what needs to be done and here's a bit of action to accompany the words."
(Fury, meanwhile, used the fight to get himself back into the process of fighting again - camp, prep, training, media, press conferences, etc - what happened in the ring was neither here nor there.)
With hindsight the cut in interest rates was a mistake but I don’t really criticise Carney from doing it. 0.25% is neither here nor there. I thought it showed a lack of confidence which was unhelpful. But it’s water under the bridge now.
The company, owned by Tata Motors Ltd, will create a new factory platform at its Solihull, U.K., plant that will enable the production of cars in electric, petrol and diesel versions.
Coincidentally, Osborne's Brexit forecast predicted Q2 2018 GDP growth of 0.2%.
Osborne's forecast also supplied by NIESR.
So it was the NIESR that predicted a Brexit recession, and a great surge in unemployment, and got all that totally wrong?
Just as well Mark Carney stepped in to avert or at least delay some of that nonsense.
NIESR most well known for the £2,600 diminution in wealth per household by 2030.
So the NIESR was officially predicting that as Britain went into meltdown the Bank of England would deliberately do nothing to stop any of the damage. Is that a sensible forecast?
It's like wargaming with the presumption that your enemy will do nothing to stop you attacking but will sip tea and eat cake as your tanks roll through their garden.
(And btw the prediction was £4,300, not £3,600)
Yeah I couldn't remember the numbers or even the date.
Economists typically make forecasts ceteris paribus.
Not if they use general equilibrium (mutatis mutandum) models or macroeconomic models with interacting sectors.
Forecasting the reaction of a Central Bank is not often included in forecasts except in the scenarios that follow the central forecast.
Official models usually take policies as given. That also include the NIESR. Some private forecasters make use of Central Bank reaction functions (e.g. Taylor rules).
Weren't we saved from the recession by a devaluation of the pound. orchestrated by the Bank of England?
QTWAIN. The Bank of England reduction in rates was a pathetically tiny 0.25% which has already been reversed.
Criticising Mark Carney for his rate cut decision is exactly analagous to criticising Tyson Fury for fighting some past it boxing promoter in his first fight after a long lay off.
Carney was sending a signal to the market. I won't again use the analogy of the Fed in 1987 or @Charles will tell me that monetary policy doesn't provide liquidity to the banks (which indeed it doesn't). But it is a good analogy. He was saying: "I've got this, I'm ready to do what needs to be done and here's a bit of action to accompany the words."
(Fury, meanwhile, used the fight to get himself back into the process of fighting again - camp, prep, training, media, press conferences, etc - what happened in the ring was neither here nor there.)
Except nothing needed to be done and the Bank being willing to do what was needed should have been blindingly obvious to all pre-referendum. Was it a shock to you than we have an independent Bank?
Maybe it was mainly the markets that saved us - a spontaneous large devaluation in Sterling, but the attitude of the Bank of England must be taken into account.
Weren't we saved from the recession by a devaluation of the pound. orchestrated by the Bank of England?
QTWAIN. The Bank of England reduction in rates was a pathetically tiny 0.25% which has already been reversed.
Criticising Mark Carney for his rate cut decision is exactly analagous to criticising Tyson Fury for fighting some past it boxing promoter in his first fight after a long lay off.
Carney was sending a signal to the market. I won't again use the analogy of the Fed in 1987 or @Charles will tell me that monetary policy doesn't provide liquidity to the banks (which indeed it doesn't). But it is a good analogy. He was saying: "I've got this, I'm ready to do what needs to be done and here's a bit of action to accompany the words."
(Fury, meanwhile, used the fight to get himself back into the process of fighting again - camp, prep, training, media, press conferences, etc - what happened in the ring was neither here nor there.)
With hindsight the cut in interest rates was a mistake but I don’t really criticise Carney from doing it. 0.25% is neither here nor there. I thought it showed a lack of confidence which was unhelpful. But it’s water under the bridge now.
Evidently the PB Brains Trust disagrees with me on this, which is of course their prerogative. The 0.25% is neither here nor there, as has been pointed out by, for example, me. So the concept of using up ammunition is not really relevant. As you say it was neither here nor there so where was the mistake?
What was much more important was a signal to the market that he stood ready to respond, in whatever direction the economy headed.
Why would we need to apply? Do manufacturers in South Korea have to apply to make goods to EU standards? Obviously those wanting to export to the EU will have to do the same and may well lobby for the U.K. not to complicate their business by having a different standard here for the domestic market. But we are not supplicants in this.
In a phone-in on London radio station LBC he told a concerned caller from the Kent town that he had no need to worry.
“The delays will not be at Dover, they will be at Calais,” Rees-Mogg told him, claiming that the French would have to conducts checks under EU law, but the UK would not as it would have taken back control of its borders.
That's fine then. The backlog of goods in limbo waiting to get checked into France will presumably just be held hovering above the channel.
I don't recall long delays before the UK entered the EEC in January 1973.
Why would we need to apply? Do manufacturers in South Korea have to apply to make goods to EU standards? Obviously those wanting to export to the EU will have to do the same and may well lobby for the U.K. not to complicate their business by having a different standard here for the domestic market. But we are not supplicants in this.
Weren't we saved from the recession by a devaluation of the pound. orchestrated by the Bank of England?
QTWAIN. The Bank of England reduction in rates was a pathetically tiny 0.25% which has already been reversed.
Criticising Mark Carney for his rate cut decision is exactly analagous to criticising Tyson Fury for fighting some past it boxing promoter in his first fight after a long lay off.
Carney was sending a signal to the market. I won't again use the analogy of the Fed in 1987 or @Charles will tell me that monetary policy doesn't provide liquidity to the banks (which indeed it doesn't). But it is a good analogy. He was saying: "I've got this, I'm ready to do what needs to be done and here's a bit of action to accompany the words."
(Fury, meanwhile, used the fight to get himself back into the process of fighting again - camp, prep, training, media, press conferences, etc - what happened in the ring was neither here nor there.)
With hindsight the cut in interest rates was a mistake but I don’t really criticise Carney from doing it. 0.25% is neither here nor there. I thought it showed a lack of confidence which was unhelpful. But it’s water under the bridge now.
Evidently the PB Brains Trust disagrees with me on this, which is of course their prerogative. The 0.25% is neither here nor there, as has been pointed out by, for example, me. So the concept of using up ammunition is not really relevant. As you say it was neither here nor there so where was the mistake?
What was much more important was a signal to the market that he stood ready to respond, in whatever direction the economy headed.
As I say I am not particularly critical. But when interest rates are so low it made sense to keep that option for later. Cutting interest rates when your currency is falling is slightly counterintuitive too. But it’s been reversed since with no obvious harm.
Why would we need to apply? Do manufacturers in South Korea have to apply to make goods to EU standards? Obviously those wanting to export to the EU will have to do the same and may well lobby for the U.K. not to complicate their business by having a different standard here for the domestic market. But we are not supplicants in this.
Applying to be able to remain a member of the body setting standards, not just manufacturing to meet them - currently not possible for no EU/EEA members.
Big difference is the UK has the tools to fight a slowdown. The Eurozone does not. They are going to ENTER the next recession with 7-8% unemployment.
I don't think that's true. If the UK were to enter a recession today unemployment would rise very quickly as we have an economy built on marginal employment. Additionally we have expended much of our monetary arsenal and not reloaded the gun.
Why would we need to apply? Do manufacturers in South Korea have to apply to make goods to EU standards? Obviously those wanting to export to the EU will have to do the same and may well lobby for the U.K. not to complicate their business by having a different standard here for the domestic market. But we are not supplicants in this.
AIUI this means that we will be able to have a voice in setting the standards, e.g. in ETSI or CEN. This is *very* important IMO.
Why would we need to apply? Do manufacturers in South Korea have to apply to make goods to EU standards? Obviously those wanting to export to the EU will have to do the same and may well lobby for the U.K. not to complicate their business by having a different standard here for the domestic market. But we are not supplicants in this.
But these aren't EU agencies.
"European standards are drawn up by CEN and CENELEC, which are independent associations and not EU agencies. They provide a single model, whereby each European standard is adopted identically as a national norm."
These international norms are requested by business, easing trade worldwide. Seems sensible to stay inside the agencies, have an influence, and save money.
True. But it will be up to our elected politicians to decide, for example, whether we are minded to allow toaster machines that are hot enough to work or kettles that boil in a sensible time. No doubt our right on political elite will choose compliance anyway.
Why would we need to apply? Do manufacturers in South Korea have to apply to make goods to EU standards? Obviously those wanting to export to the EU will have to do the same and may well lobby for the U.K. not to complicate their business by having a different standard here for the domestic market. But we are not supplicants in this.
AIUI this means that we will be able to have a voice in setting the standards, e.g. in ETSI or CEN. This is *very* important IMO.
OK I need to work, so my last comment is:
Reading the runes today, my latest guess is that TMay is trying to get us into a version of EFTA/EEA, but they will just call it something else, to save face? Cf "customs partnership" rather than "customs union".
It might work. Question is if the EU demands FoM as the price of agreement. Then there will be blood.
Gordon Brown was on Marr yesterday, a very interesting interview. Brown was saying that there are several checks on FOM already being implemented by the EU27 – the implication was that they could be applied to any EEA/EFTA package we secure. Worth a watch actually.
Evidently the PB Brains Trust disagrees with me on this, which is of course their prerogative. The 0.25% is neither here nor there, as has been pointed out by, for example, me. So the concept of using up ammunition is not really relevant. As you say it was neither here nor there so where was the mistake?
What was much more important was a signal to the market that he stood ready to respond, in whatever direction the economy headed.
Because it was of limited practical value, used up firepower, signed to the equity markets the Bank would bail them out and sent a slightly panicked message
In a phone-in on London radio station LBC he told a concerned caller from the Kent town that he had no need to worry.
“The delays will not be at Dover, they will be at Calais,” Rees-Mogg told him, claiming that the French would have to conducts checks under EU law, but the UK would not as it would have taken back control of its borders.
That's fine then. The backlog of goods in limbo waiting to get checked into France will presumably just be held hovering above the channel.
I don't recall long delays before the UK entered the EEC in January 1973.
Perhaps the increasingly ridiculous Rees imagines some sort of gigantic flotation device in the middle of the English Channel.
Clearly the author has an issue with people of Jewish heritage
Erm, according to Wikipedia, Zac married Alice Rothschild.
Yes. Cheated with her while still married to his first wife as well.
Tbh I did not know Zac was Jewish (assuming he is). The only things I associate his father with are the Referendum Party, David Mellor, and a mysterious, bitter feud with Private Eye -- not religion at all. What was the Private Eye thing about? He sued over the Lucan business iirc but they'd been going at it for years before.
Why would we need to apply? Do manufacturers in South Korea have to apply to make goods to EU standards? Obviously those wanting to export to the EU will have to do the same and may well lobby for the U.K. not to complicate their business by having a different standard here for the domestic market. But we are not supplicants in this.
AIUI this means that we will be able to have a voice in setting the standards, e.g. in ETSI or CEN. This is *very* important IMO.
OK I need to work, so my last comment is:
Reading the runes today, my latest guess is that TMay is trying to get us into a version of EFTA/EEA, but they will just call it something else, to save face? Cf "customs partnership" rather than "customs union".
It might work. Question is if the EU demands FoM as the price of agreement. Then there will be blood.
Gordon Brown was on Marr yesterday, a very interesting interview. Brown was saying that there are several checks on FOM already being implemented by the EU27 – the implication was that they could be applied to any EEA/EFTA package we secure. Worth a watch actually.
I saw him do a turn at Hay Festival last weekend, he ran that same argument there too and he turned up on a hot Sunday afternoon in full fig - suited and booted. Last time he spoke there just before the Referendum he came over much more relaxed and 'retired'. This time he was much tighter. Looking to get into the game maybe.
Actually his session at Hay was the first time I though Leave would win, he was asked about Immigration and he said it was the 'wrong question', the issue was only with 'illegal immigration'. That was the point it was achingly clear Remain didnt have a viable line to run on Immigration
Why would we need to apply? Do manufacturers in South Korea have to apply to make goods to EU standards? Obviously those wanting to export to the EU will have to do the same and may well lobby for the U.K. not to complicate their business by having a different standard here for the domestic market. But we are not supplicants in this.
But these aren't EU agencies.
"European standards are drawn up by CEN and CENELEC, which are independent associations and not EU agencies. They provide a single model, whereby each European standard is adopted identically as a national norm."
These international norms are requested by business, easing trade worldwide. Seems sensible to stay inside the agencies, have an influence, and save money.
True. But it will be up to our elected politicians to decide, for example, whether we are minded to allow toaster machines that are hot enough to work or kettles that boil in a sensible time. No doubt our right on political elite will choose compliance anyway.
That's the issue: we're more likely to get standards that don't suit us (leaving aside your silly examples) if we don't have a voice in setting those standards. If we're in the organisations, we can not only alter standards to better suit us, but 'we' (and our industry) can also suggest new standards (something we should be doing more of).
There's another issue here: according to Cenlec's website, the standards are published in three 'standard' languages: English, French and German. If we leave, will the standards be published in English? If not, there's an extra cost either to be taken by organisations interested in the standards, or by a UK standards body.
Evidently the PB Brains Trust disagrees with me on this, which is of course their prerogative. The 0.25% is neither here nor there, as has been pointed out by, for example, me. So the concept of using up ammunition is not really relevant. As you say it was neither here nor there so where was the mistake?
What was much more important was a signal to the market that he stood ready to respond, in whatever direction the economy headed.
Because it was of limited practical value, used up firepower, signed to the equity markets the Bank would bail them out and sent a slightly panicked message
As I keep saying, it wasn't supposed to have practical value, it was in order to reassure the markets which I think is a reasonable course of action for a Central Bank, in the face of a once in a generation dislocation with uncertain consequences, to have taken.
I also see that had the Bank done nothing then there would have been those criticising them for playing the fiddle. I mean sterling alone was an extraordinary event in the timeframe concerned.
Clearly the author has an issue with people of Jewish heritage
Erm, according to Wikipedia, Zac married Alice Rothschild.
Yes. Cheated with her while still married to his first wife as well.
Tbh I did not know Zac was Jewish (assuming he is). The only things I associate his father with are the Referendum Party, David Mellor, and a mysterious, bitter feud with Private Eye -- not religion at all. What was the Private Eye thing about? He sued over the Lucan business iirc but they'd been going at it for years before.
Why would we need to apply? Do manufacturers in South Korea have to apply to make goods to EU standards? Obviously those wanting to export to the EU will have to do the same and may well lobby for the U.K. not to complicate their business by having a different standard here for the domestic market. But we are not supplicants in this.
But these aren't EU agencies.
"European standards are drawn up by CEN and CENELEC, which are independent associations and not EU agencies. They provide a single model, whereby each European standard is adopted identically as a national norm."
These international norms are requested by business, easing trade worldwide. Seems sensible to stay inside the agencies, have an influence, and save money.
True. But it will be up to our elected politicians to decide, for example, whether we are minded to allow toaster machines that are hot enough to work or kettles that boil in a sensible time. No doubt our right on political elite will choose compliance anyway.
That's the issue: we're more likely to get standards that don't suit us (leaving aside your silly examples) if we don't have a voice in setting those standards. If we're in the organisations, we can not only alter standards to better suit us, but 'we' (and our industry) can also suggest new standards (something we should be doing more of).
There's another issue here: according to Cenlec's website, the standards are published in three 'standard' languages: English, French and German. If we leave, will the standards be published in English? If not, there's an extra cost either to be taken by organisations interested in the standards, or by a UK standards body.
When MiFID III comes along, dear god help us, we want to be right at the middle of the decision-making, creating process.
Agreed, the really scary thing is what comes after him. The zanier elements of the base will rightly conclude if we can elect DJT why would we ever need to pick a mainstream candidate ever again?
GW Bush may have been the last tradiotradi Republican president.
populists or b) the populist thing blows up spectacularly somehow.
lide.
Hence in the UK we had UKIP, Brexit and Corbyn, in the USA we had Trump and Sanders, in France they have Le Pen and Melenchon, in Italy they have a coalition government between the anti austerity Five Star and the anti migration Lega Nord and in New Zealand there is a coalition government between Labour and New Zealand First
Yep. I find it enormously frustrating that my fellow social democrats refuse to acknowledge how their support for open immigration and opposition to national identity completely undermines their own electoral base. They need to read more Orwell.
"my fellow social democrats"
Guffaw. Your posts suggest you are one of the most rightwing Tories on this forum. There must be a massive difference between what you write and what you think.
I wouldn’t say that Elliot is a right wing Tory, but tbh he doesn’t come off as a social democrat but as centrist that leans right, especially on cultural issues. Labour did the ‘tough on immigration’ thing he’d like the party to go and do now in 2015, and they didn’t win. This is a very good article on the matter of centre left parties and immigration: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/06/lesson-swedish-social-democrats-not-one-you-think#amp
Research shows that voters lost to the far-right will not return to the social democratic embrace. Having rejected their traditional party affiliation, these voters state they would rather switch to other conservative parties rather than go back. And in many ways they shouldn’t. The hardening of rhetoric on immigration by social democrats is little more than the left following the far right. Voters who state “immigration” as their primary concern will always choose the real thing rather over the forced imitation.
My son was just watching LittleBabyBum nursery rhymes on the TV. YouTube, in its infinite wisdom, decided to play a nearly five-minute long advert for beard waxing or somesuch in the middle.
We hear a great deal about the money that Google, Facebook etc spend on AI research. Since their bread-and-butter business is ad placement, it's clear that their 'AI' on ads is very artificial and not very intelligent ...
There is a general problem with advertising in children's videos as children will most often watch on a parent's account.
Yes it’s true that Banks was a net drag on the result and we’d have won by more if he’d been dropped down one of his defunct mines in summer 2015 and the effort wasted dealing with him had been spent making Vote Leave much stronger earlier. From grassroots to digital, everything would have happened earlier, bigger and better but for that debilitating distraction which meant VL staff had to fight Banks and the entire Establishment simultaneously.
"Ps. Another branching history… If Cameron and Osborne had simply delayed the vote to 2017, Vote Leave would have ceased to exist in spring 2016, Banks and Farage would have been in charge with Cash/DD et al, and Remain would very likely have cruised to victory last year."
More evidence of Cameron's rank stupidity.
Party before country. He wanted time for the Cons to heal after he won.
Comments
Out of interest, both Kathryn Warner's Edward II Blog, and Lady Despenser's Scribery are excellent online resources for medieval history.
Yes it’s true that Banks was a net drag on the result and we’d have won by more if he’d been dropped down one of his defunct mines in summer 2015 and the effort wasted dealing with him had been spent making Vote Leave much stronger earlier. From grassroots to digital, everything would have happened earlier, bigger and better but for that debilitating distraction which meant VL staff had to fight Banks and the entire Establishment simultaneously.
https://dominiccummings.com/2018/06/11/on-the-referendum-27-banks-russia-conspiracies-and-vote-leave/
No beast from the East bounce back.
Coincidentally, Osborne's Brexit forecast predicted Q2 2018 GDP growth of 0.2%.
"Ps. Another branching history… If Cameron and Osborne had simply delayed the vote to 2017, Vote Leave would have ceased to exist in spring 2016, Banks and Farage would have been in charge with Cash/DD et al, and Remain would very likely have cruised to victory last year."
More evidence of Cameron's rank stupidity.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
https://mobile.twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1006134428471627776
He seems to have worked out ways to get much of what he wants without much backing from Congress now using things like his issues of national security powers to get his tariffs stuff through without needing to involve them. It will be interesting to see just how far he can stretch the 'Imperial Presidency'
No pressure on the translators....
As I have said before a Trump Presidency is good for him but terrible for the GOP, the GOP risk losing control of the House and their state assemblies and governors' majority in November as well as failing to make the gains in the Senate they need as insurance for 2020 when they will be defending far more Senate seats
Parking lot would be more apt
/sarcasm
"The reduced generosity of UC will become a live issue from next year, when we move on to the final implementation stage – moving people with existing claims from Tax Credits (and other legacy benefits) and onto Universal Credit. To ensure that this transition does not lead to families receiving less support immediately – the cliff-edge that did for George Osborne’s tax credit cuts – UC will include a Transitional Protection regime. The design and implementation of this scheme will be debated in parliament this Autumn and are likely to be the highest profile element of Universal Credit this year."
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/with-the-benefits-of-benefit-reform-diminishing-universal-credit-needs-a-new-direction/
NIESR most well known for the £2,600 diminution in wealth per household by 2030.
Taking it out of doggerel:
“We don’t want you: Goldschmidts or Rothschilds”
Clearly the author has an issue with people of Jewish heritage
One reason for sluggish growth is the disruption caused by severe weather in March
"My Brexit would been Brilliant. It's not my fault the Brexit we got is shit"
Every Brexiteer from now till eternity will parrot that line, and in no case will it be true.
Economists typically make forecasts ceteris paribus.
Obviously they'd have a better shot at the midterms if Hillary Clinton was president, but the GOP agenda seems to be unpopular even among GOP voters, whereas the Trump agenda is at least popular among its own constituency.
edit - as does the NIESR
Carney was sending a signal to the market. I won't again use the analogy of the Fed in 1987 or @Charles will tell me that monetary policy doesn't provide liquidity to the banks (which indeed it doesn't). But it is a good analogy. He was saying: "I've got this, I'm ready to do what needs to be done and here's a bit of action to accompany the words."
(Fury, meanwhile, used the fight to get himself back into the process of fighting again - camp, prep, training, media, press conferences, etc - what happened in the ring was neither here nor there.)
The trade wars issue has hit the GOP, especially with Independents, while Trump voters are annoyed with the lack of support from establishment Republicans like Ryan for the tariffs and may stay at home in November rather than vote for establishment GOP candidates
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/
You only mention interest rates - that's only part of it.
The interest rate cut was for the media
And was a waste of dry powder
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/11/rees-mogg-no-need-for-customs-checks-at-dover-in-no-deal-brexit
In a phone-in on London radio station LBC he told a concerned caller from the Kent town that he had no need to worry.
“The delays will not be at Dover, they will be at Calais,” Rees-Mogg told him, claiming that the French would have to conducts checks under EU law, but the UK would not as it would have taken back control of its borders.
That's fine then. The backlog of goods in limbo waiting to get checked into France will presumably just be held hovering above the channel.
What was much more important was a signal to the market that he stood ready to respond, in whatever direction the economy headed.
eg - https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/24/bank-of-england-mark-carney-says-brexit-contingency-plans-under-way
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/11/rees-mogg-no-need-for-customs-checks-at-dover-in-no-deal-brexit
In a phone-in on London radio station LBC he told a concerned caller from the Kent town that he had no need to worry.
“The delays will not be at Dover, they will be at Calais,” Rees-Mogg told him, claiming that the French would have to conducts checks under EU law, but the UK would not as it would have taken back control of its borders.
That's fine then. The backlog of goods in limbo waiting to get checked into France will presumably just be held hovering above the channel.
I don't recall long delays before the UK entered the EEC in January 1973.
https://thetradenews.com/uk-mp-no-bonfire-financial-regulations-post-brexit/
F1: for those who missed it, my post-race ramble is here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/06/canada-post-race-analysis-2018.html
Perhaps the increasingly ridiculous Rees imagines some sort of gigantic flotation device in the middle of the English Channel.
NEW THREAD
Actually his session at Hay was the first time I though Leave would win, he was asked about Immigration and he said it was the 'wrong question', the issue was only with 'illegal immigration'. That was the point it was achingly clear Remain didnt have a viable line to run on Immigration
There's another issue here: according to Cenlec's website, the standards are published in three 'standard' languages: English, French and German. If we leave, will the standards be published in English? If not, there's an extra cost either to be taken by organisations interested in the standards, or by a UK standards body.
I also see that had the Bank done nothing then there would have been those criticising them for playing the fiddle. I mean sterling alone was an extraordinary event in the timeframe concerned.
Research shows that voters lost to the far-right will not return to the social democratic embrace. Having rejected their traditional party affiliation, these voters state they would rather switch to other conservative parties rather than go back. And in many ways they shouldn’t. The hardening of rhetoric on immigration by social democrats is little more than the left following the far right. Voters who state “immigration” as their primary concern will always choose the real thing rather over the forced imitation.