Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
Is he mad enough to do it? Suspect they'll be wondering the same thing in Brussels.
If he convinces Brussels that he is mad enough to do it, then it will be job done.
I wrote earlier this year that we needed to appear mad to Brussels. That what we needed was not just to act hard, but to act full on Vinnie Jones levels of "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" stark raving bonkers to the Europeans.
Being "diplomatic" won't work.
They'll just wait for us to come to our senses, at which time our bargaining position will be even weaker than it currently is.
Except we have no need to come to our senses. We can cope either way, even HM Treasuries pessimistic forecasts show we'll be better off in a future no deal scenario than we are now, what will be foregone is some growth. The longer we get past the event horizon of a no deal Brexit the less disruptive it will be to us too.
You're an economist by training. Tell us about the time value of money. How much is a dollar today Vs a dollar tomorrow worth?
I am not sure day to day movements in currency worthwhile.
Lets see where the pound is in the autumn
Big G it's nothing to do with the exchange rate. If you have a dollar today it is worth more than being given a dollar in a year's time. Even at today's low interest rates.
So if we forego growth today and it arrives some time in the future it makes less of an impact on our wealth.
If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.
This is known as Net Present Value.
It is indeed. So if, say, we have a few years of (oh I don't know Brexit-inspired) bad growth followed by good growth then that good growth will relatively make us less well off compared with the damage done by the next years of bad growth. The further out the growth is the less impact it has on our current wealth.
@Philip_Thompson as an economist knows this but seems to want to ignore it for the purposes of Brexit.
Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
Is he mad enough to do it? Suspect they'll be wondering the same thing in Brussels.
If he convinces Brussels that he is mad enough to do it, then it will be job done.
I wrote earlier this year that we needed to appear mad to Brussels. That what we needed was not just to act hard, but to act full on Vinnie Jones levels of "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" stark raving bonkers to the Europeans.
Being "diplomatic" won't work.
They'll just wait for us to come to our senses, at which time our bargaining position will be even weaker than it currently is.
Except we have no need to come to our senses. We can cope either way, even HM Treasuries pessimistic forecasts show we'll be better off in a future no deal scenario than we are now, what will be foregone is some growth. The longer we get past the event horizon of a no deal Brexit the less disruptive it will be to us too.
You're an economist by training. Tell us about the time value of money. How much is a dollar today Vs a dollar tomorrow worth?
I am not sure day to day movements in currency worthwhile.
Lets see where the pound is in the autumn
Big G it's nothing to do with the exchange rate. If you have a dollar today it is worth more than being given a dollar in a year's time. Even at today's low interest rates.
So if we forego growth today and it arrives some time in the future it makes less of an impact on our wealth.
If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.
This is known as Net Present Value.
Yup. Happy days. Try working out the NPV of a life assurance policy payable to the last survivor of a married couple with a return-of-premiums clause if they die in the first five years. And those were the easy ones. Ah, nostalgia...
Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
Is he mad enough to do it? Suspect they'll be wondering the same thing in Brussels.
If he convinces Brussels that he is mad enough to do it, then it will be job done.
I wrote earlier this year that we needed to appear mad to Brussels. That what we needed was not just to act hard, but to act full on Vinnie Jones levels of "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" stark raving bonkers to the Europeans.
Being "diplomatic" won't work.
They'll just wait for us to come to our senses, at which time our bargaining position will be even weaker than it currently is.
Except we have no need to come to our senses. We can cope either way, even HM Treasuries pessimistic forecasts show we'll be better off in a future no deal scenario than we are now, what will be foregone is some growth. The longer we get past the event horizon of a no deal Brexit the less disruptive it will be to us too.
You're an economist by training. Tell us about the time value of money. How much is a dollar today Vs a dollar tomorrow worth?
I am not sure day to day movements in currency worthwhile.
Lets see where the pound is in the autumn
Big G it's nothing to do with the exchange rate. If you have a dollar today it is worth more than being given a dollar in a year's time. Even at today's low interest rates.
So if we forego growth today and it arrives some time in the future it makes less of an impact on our wealth.
If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.
This is known as Net Present Value.
Yup. Happy days. Try working out the NPV of a life assurance policy payable to the last survivor of a married couple with a return-of-premiums clause if they die in the first five years. And those were the easy ones. Ah, nostalgia...
We accountant trainees used to have a few jokes (sad I know). One in particular was "What's the definition of an actuary? Someone who thought accountancy would be too exciting." :-D
Yup. Happy days. Try working out the NPV of a life assurance policy payable to the last survivor of a married couple with a return-of-premiums clause if they die in the first five years. And those were the easy ones. Ah, nostalgia...
Didn't everything else seem dull in comparison afterwards?
Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
Is he mad enough to do it? Suspect they'll be wondering the same thing in Brussels.
If he convinces Brussels that he is mad enough to do it, then it will be job done.
I wrote earlier this year that we needed to appear mad to Brussels. That what we needed was not just to act hard, but to act full on Vinnie Jones levels of "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" stark raving bonkers to the Europeans.
Being "diplomatic" won't work.
They'll just wait for us to come to our senses, at which time our bargaining position will be even weaker than it currently is.
Except we have no need to come to our senses. We can cope either way, even HM Treasuries pessimistic forecasts show we'll be better off in a future no deal scenario than we are now, what will be foregone is some growth. The longer we get past the event horizon of a no deal Brexit the less disruptive it will be to us too.
You're an economist by training. Tell us about the time value of money. How much is a dollar today Vs a dollar tomorrow worth?
I am not sure day to day movements in currency worthwhile.
Lets see where the pound is in the autumn
Big G it's nothing to do with the exchange rate. If you have a dollar today it is worth more than being given a dollar in a year's time. Even at today's low interest rates.
So if we forego growth today and it arrives some time in the future it makes less of an impact on our wealth.
If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.
This is known as Net Present Value.
Yup. Happy days. Try working out the NPV of a life assurance policy payable to the last survivor of a married couple with a return-of-premiums clause if they die in the first five years. And those were the easy ones. Ah, nostalgia...
We accountant trainees used to have a few jokes (sad I know). One in particular was "What's the definition of an actuary? Someone who thought accountancy would be too exciting." :-D
Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
Is he mad enough to do it? Suspect they'll be wondering the same thing in Brussels.
If he convinces Brussels that he is mad enough to do it, then it will be job done.
I wrote earlier this year that we needed to appear mad to Brussels. That what we needed was not just to act hard, but to act full on Vinnie Jones levels of "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" stark raving bonkers to the Europeans.
Being "diplomatic" won't work.
They'll just wait for us to come to our senses, at which time our bargaining position will be even weaker than it currently is.
Except we have no need to come to our senses. We can cope either way, even HM Treasuries pessimistic forecasts show we'll be better off in a future no deal scenario than we are now, what will be foregone is some growth. The longer we get past the event horizon of a no deal Brexit the less disruptive it will be to us too.
You're an economist by training. Tell us about the time value of money. How much is a dollar today Vs a dollar tomorrow worth?
I am not sure day to day movements in currency worthwhile.
Lets see where the pound is in the autumn
Big G it's nothing to do with the exchange rate. If you have a dollar today it is worth more than being given a dollar in a year's time. Even at today's low interest rates.
So if we forego growth today and it arrives some time in the future it makes less of an impact on our wealth.
If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.
This is known as Net Present Value.
Yup. Happy days. Try working out the NPV of a life assurance policy payable to the last survivor of a married couple with a return-of-premiums clause if they die in the first five years. And those were the easy ones. Ah, nostalgia...
We accountant trainees used to have a few jokes (sad I know). One in particular was "What's the definition of an actuary? Someone who thought accountancy would be too exciting." :-D
Yup. Happy days. Try working out the NPV of a life assurance policy payable to the last survivor of a married couple with a return-of-premiums clause if they die in the first five years. And those were the easy ones. Ah, nostalgia...
Didn't everything else seem dull in comparison afterwards?
I know. The glamour, the excitement, the paparazzi. How did I cope...:)
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not an actuary. I worked alongside them)
So Rabb thinks maybe sort of saying it on *ONE* interview on Radio 5 is enough to say that there is a democratic mandate for no deal? Wow.
Apparently he thinks that repeatedly telling people during the referendum campaign that - according to the BBC - "there was no doubt that the UK would get a deal with the EU" is a mandate for leaving without a deal now.
When someone lies so blatantly about things that are a matter of public record, what chance do we stand of getting any truth from them about things that aren't?
Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
No leader who has led on best PM ratings has failed to win the general election even if their party lacked a clear lead on headline voting intention
Callaghan led Thatcher in best PM ratings in 1979.
Wilson was certainly more popular than Heath in 1970.
...which is why I asked for a source. @HYUFD may well be correct, in broad if not absolutely, but I still want to look at the figures...
There's two types of polling, Best PM and net satisfaction ratings.
Best PM ratings aren't as good as net satisfaction ratings, from 1979 onwards every party leader that has led on satisfaction ratings has won the general election.
Here's the Ipsos MORI figures on net satisfaction from 1977 onwards
Best PM is a bit hit and miss, in 1970 and 1979 Wilson and Callaghan led on best PM but lost the election.
Unfortunately most of the pollsters that polled back in 1970 and 1979 no longer poll in the UK, so you'd have go and read the election books by Buttler et al to see the figures.
Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
How much did May lead Corbyn before the June 2017 where she lost seats and Labour gained?
To be fair today's situation is vastly different with labour in decline and the lib dems rising and threatening to overtake labour
Elections concentrate minds. The Great Squeeze of 2017 could happen again, though as we saw in 1983, there can come a point where voters are willing to ignore the likelihood of wasting their votes. This situation already exists in Scotland, where the 4-party system is working quite well in Scottish Parliament elections but creates freak results in Westminster elections, with parties "coming through the middle" to win seats with small majorities.
As far as the next GE is concerned, timing is everything. If there was an election this month, Labour would be in serious trouble. Luckily the election won't come till a point when things will be much more difficult for Johnson.
Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
No leader who has led on best PM ratings has failed to win the general election even if their party lacked a clear lead on headline voting intention
Callaghan led Thatcher in best PM ratings in 1979.
Wilson was certainly more popular than Heath in 1970.
...which is why I asked for a source. @HYUFD may well be correct, in broad if not absolutely, but I still want to look at the figures...
There's two types of polling, Best PM and net satisfaction ratings.
Best PM ratings aren't as good as net satisfaction ratings, from 1979 onwards every party leader that has led on satisfaction ratings has won the general election.
Here's the Ipsos MORI figures on net satisfaction from 1977 onwards
Best PM is a bit hit and miss, in 1970 and 1979 Wilson and Callaghan led on best PM but lost the election.
Unfortunately most of the pollsters that polled back in 1970 and 1979 no longer poll in the UK, so you'd have go and read the election books by Buttler et al to see the figures.
If there are only two options, the question should be "Better PM".
Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
How much did May lead Corbyn before the June 2017 where she lost seats and Labour gained?
May still led Corbyn on a net satisfied and best PM basis and won enough seats to form another Tory Government, Corbyn is polling far worse than 2017 now anyway
The No Deal Establisment wants No Deal. That's what they are saying. And yet, some remain impervious to the message.
Who gains from no deal? Tice, Mogg and the like you’ve been suckered to allow rich people to become richer but apparently that’s democracy.
Not those with expensive London properties who mainly voted Remain, some working class voters who voted Leave to regain sovereignty and greater control of immigration maybe
Interesting that support for a No Deal in the IPSOS-Mori is 38%, which is less than the combined Tory/BXP score. 50% are opposed and 54% believe it will adversely affect them.
Despite that 10 point Tory lead I think it is way to soon to be calling any pre-Brexit election for Johnson. His lead looks very vulnerable to me.
That is what Kieren Pedley thinks in this good news/bad news thread.
How much did May lead Corbyn before the June 2017 where she lost seats and Labour gained?
May still led Corbyn on a net satisfied and best PM basis and won enough seats to form another Tory Government, Corbyn is polling far worse than 2017 now anyway
So in the most recent GE, the person leading best PM lost a couple of dozen seats net.
If Boris were to repeat that we would be in a very well hung parliament.
The No Deal Establisment wants No Deal. That's what they are saying. And yet, some remain impervious to the message.
Who gains from no deal? Tice, Mogg and the like you’ve been suckered to allow rich people to become richer but apparently that’s democracy.
Not those with expensive London properties who mainly voted Remain, some working class voters who voted Leave to regain sovereignty and greater control of immigration maybe
That’s not a real benefit it’s a con job who apart from Phil Thompson gives a shit about sovereignty you can’t eat it and if you think Johnson will control immigration with his points based system you have fallen for another lie.
Feel sorry for anyone with a phone in B&R who was canvassed but hasn’t yet voted. It seems like half the LibDem membership is logged into the national phonebanking software and there are only so many numbers to call.
She has instead been allocated a smaller office nearby which, she claims, will make it far more difficult to carry out her parliamentary business.
I wouldn't have mentioned that if I were her. Stick to the dying aunt line. She would have known how this works when she defected. No point moaning now.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
No, they offered to change it for Theresa as well. The EU position hasn't changed. Tbh, the time for Boris to be doing this was over two years ago when we still had a majority. It's all completely useless now because the fifth columnist Tory MPs will turn traitor.
This is like a general implementing a strategy that would have worked before the barbarians were at the gate, let alone through it.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
The PD means nothing, it’s just a statement of understanding. The backstop is in the WA, and if that document doesn’t change then it’s no deal.
Is he mad enough to do it? Suspect they'll be wondering the same thing in Brussels.
If he convinces Brussels that he is mad enough to do it, then it will be job done. Ing I wrote earlier this year that we needed to appear mad to Brussels. That what we needed was not just to act hard, but to act full on Vinnie Jones levels of "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" stark raving bonkers to the Europeans.
Being "diplomatic" won't work.
They'll just wait for us to come to our senses, at which time our bargaining position will be even weaker than it currently is.
Except we have no need to come to our senses. We can cope either way, even HM Treasuries pessimistic forecasts show we'll be better off in a future no deal scenario than we are now, what will be foregone is some growth. The longer we get past the event horizon of a no deal Brexit the less disruptive it will be to us too.
You're an economist by training. Tell us about the time value of money. How much is a dollar today Vs a dollar tomorrow worth?
I am not sure day to day movements in currency worthwhile.
Lets see where the pound is in the autumn
That's not what @TOPPING meant, @Big_G_NorthWales . The theory is that a dollar now is worth more than a dollar in ten years time, because a) you could have put that dollar in a bank account and got interest, b) the purchasing power of that future dollar is less due to inflation, and c) there is a non-trivial chance of you dying in the meantime.
I used to work in an actuarial firm (many years ago!) and you have to take things like that into account.
Yet there are still currently buyers for long government bonds that guarantee the holder a real terms loss, if also guaranteeing return of capital.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
I don't think so. I think they were always open to changing the PD as it's essentially just a road-map of where the two sides would like the LTR negotiations to end up. It's not supposed to be set in stone.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
They’ve been offering to add a codicil to the PD for ages now.
If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.
This is known as Net Present Value.
It is indeed. So if, say, we have a few years of (oh I don't know Brexit-inspired) bad growth followed by good growth then that good growth will relatively make us less well off compared with the damage done by the next years of bad growth. The further out the growth is the less impact it has on our current wealth.
@Philip_Thompson as an economist knows this but seems to want to ignore it for the purposes of Brexit.
I don't ignore it this is the first time I've seen you bring it up and you are 100% correct, Net Present Value is a real issue.
However that doesn't mean we should always prioritise today over the future. Investment is an example of where people forego £'s today in order to get more in the future, using your figures investing £1m today in an investment that expects 7% income means you are 4% better in foregoing £1m today.
On a compound basis if you can generate 7% annual growth and inflation is 2.5% then foregoing £1m today gives you £1.967m in nominal terms a decade later, or £1.537m in real terms.
It all depends upon what you think will be the relevant factors over the whole term.
One can see real life examples where countries have a period of low growth followed by periods of higher growth and the higher growth in the future more than overtakes the lower growth of the past. Within the EU Ireland is a prime example of this.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
The PD means nothing, it’s just a statement of understanding. The backstop is in the WA, and if that document doesn’t change then it’s no deal.
That's not strictly true.
Under international arbitration they would look at the complete agreement - it's just that where the two conflicted (which I'm sure they do), then the WA has precedence.
If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.
This is known as Net Present Value.
It is indeed. So if, say, we have a few years of (oh I don't know Brexit-inspired) bad growth followed by good growth then that good growth will relatively make us less well off compared with the damage done by the next years of bad growth. The further out the growth is the less impact it has on our current wealth.
@Philip_Thompson as an economist knows this but seems to want to ignore it for the purposes of Brexit.
I don't ignore it this is the first time I've seen you bring it up and you are 100% correct, Net Present Value is a real issue.
However that doesn't mean we should always prioritise today over the future. Investment is an example of where people forego £'s today in order to get more in the future, using your figures investing £1m today in an investment that expects 7% income means you are 4% better in foregoing £1m today.
On a compound basis if you can generate 7% annual growth and inflation is 2.5% then foregoing £1m today gives you £1.967m in nominal terms a decade later, or £1.537m in real terms.
It all depends upon what you think will be the relevant factors over the whole term.
One can see real life examples where countries have a period of low growth followed by periods of higher growth and the higher growth in the future more than overtakes the lower growth of the past. Within the EU Ireland is a prime example of this.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
No, they offered to change it for Theresa as well. The EU position hasn't changed. Tbh, the time for Boris to be doing this was over two years ago when we still had a majority. It's all completely useless now because the fifth columnist Tory MPs will turn traitor.
This is like a general implementing a strategy that would have worked before the barbarians were at the gate, let alone through it.
The funny bit - of course - is that a year ago, Boris wrote a header about how we need to ask for a six month extension, and use that renegotiate.
Instead, we're not asking for an extension. And it's not clear that even the WA without the backstop would now pass.
If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.
This is known as Net Present Value.
It is indeed. So if, say, we have a few years of (oh I don't know Brexit-inspired) bad growth followed by good growth then that good growth will relatively make us less well off compared with the damage done by the next years of bad growth. The further out the growth is the less impact it has on our current wealth.
@Philip_Thompson as an economist knows this but seems to want to ignore it for the purposes of Brexit.
I don't ignore it this is the first time I've seen you bring it up and you are 100% correct, Net Present Value is a real issue.
However that doesn't mean we should always prioritise today over the future. Investment is an example of where people forego £'s today in order to get more in the future, using your figures investing £1m today in an investment that expects 7% income means you are 4% better in foregoing £1m today.
On a compound basis if you can generate 7% annual growth and inflation is 2.5% then foregoing £1m today gives you £1.967m in nominal terms a decade later, or £1.537m in real terms.
It all depends upon what you think will be the relevant factors over the whole term.
One can see real life examples where countries have a period of low growth followed by periods of higher growth and the higher growth in the future more than overtakes the lower growth of the past. Within the EU Ireland is a prime example of this.
7% growth? We're not China.
And interest rates aren't 5% and our GDP isn't £1 million.
It was a hypothetical example to mathematically demonstrate the point [and on a microeconomic level many companies investing will look for 7%+ returns on investment].
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
The PD means nothing, it’s just a statement of understanding. The backstop is in the WA, and if that document doesn’t change then it’s no deal.
That's not strictly true.
Under international arbitration they would look at the complete agreement - it's just that where the two conflicted (which I'm sure they do), then the WA has precedence.
Which is why, from the EU side, they’re happy to write anything in the PD, but won’t change a single letter of the WA, which is the primary legal treaty document containing all the backstop language.
That says way more about Sarah Wollaston than it does about Boris Johnson.
The system seems a little bit odd, surely something like longetivity should give you first dibs, rather than the whips getting first choice.
Still - hard to be that sympathetic to Ms Wollaston: actions have consequences. Why should someone with just as much constituency business have a smaller office while she has a big one?
Finally Smith goes! 284, after being 122/8 not good for our bowlers.
Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day.
A pair of night watchmen?
Don't exaggerate. It's ten.
Ridiculous given we're already passed the time for close of play, but hey.
Maybe it will be like 2001, where Caddick and Thorpe conjured 291 from nowhere and then Michael Slater and Matthew Hayden put that in rather abrupt perspective.
Finally Smith goes! 284, after being 122/8 not good for our bowlers.
Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day.
A pair of night watchmen?
Don't exaggerate. It's ten.
Ridiculous given we're already passed the time for close of play, but hey.
Maybe it will be like 2001, where Caddick and Thorpe conjured 291 from nowhere and then Michael Slater and Matthew Hayden put that in rather abrupt perspective.
And then again - maybe not...
We're only past the time for close of play if we'd bowled the full 90 overs surely?
They are preparing their "failing and blaming" strategy. Let me write Boris' speech now.
"My friends, the EU has chosen No Deal. The British Government tried as hard as anybody could, but they refused. It could have been a brighter future if it wasn't for their intransigence. But just as it did during WW2 the British people are strong and we will achieve the sunlit uplands. The more revalued pound at £1=$1 will make exports much more competitive and I am pleased to announce a new trade deal with our natural allies the Americans that will help in our task. GMO crops, cheap food, the world is ours! "
(Except that you can't now live there nor buy anything from there... )
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
The PD means nothing, it’s just a statement of understanding. The backstop is in the WA, and if that document doesn’t change then it’s no deal.
That's not strictly true.
Under international arbitration they would look at the complete agreement - it's just that where the two conflicted (which I'm sure they do), then the WA has precedence.
Which is why, from the EU side, they’re happy to write anything in the PD, but won’t change a single letter of the WA, which is the primary legal treaty document containing all the backstop language.
I'm supremely relaxed about the backstop, because - so long as the people of Northern Ireland made it clear via either their elected representatives or a referendum that they wished to leave the backstop - we would be obliged to tell the EU that under Article 1 of the UN Treaty, the people of Northern Ireland have a right to self determination, and therefore we would be exiting. And it is not possible for any treaty between the UK and a third party to supercede our obligations under those treaties.
Now, the EU might scream and shout at this point, but there would be fundamentally nothing they could do. And, from a matter of morality, this is correct. We cannot allow Article 1 to be superceded by an agreement with the EU. And any international arbitration would look at the UK's existing treaty commitments.
Finally Smith goes! 284, after being 122/8 not good for our bowlers.
Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day
Only 2 overs left apparently which I don't understand given there should be 90 minus 2 in a day and there's only been 81 so that's 5 short.
Will finish on the hour, and England will get fined for bowling slowly!
Edit: there was maybe one over lost to the “rain” earlier, but they came back on a minute after they went off.
If 1 was lost to rain then that'd mean we were just short 4.
Surely all the reviews had an impact too? Considering how many mistakes the Umpires made today it would be harsh to fine England when the Umpires were responsible for a fair amount of time lost too.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
If you're perfectly happy to believe that, I'm perfectly happy to let you...
If interest rates are 5% and inflation is 2%, £1 today will be worth £1.05 in a year's time, or £1.03 in real terms. So £1 today is better than £1 in a year's time. 3p better in this example.
This is known as Net Present Value.
It is indeed. So if, say, we have a few years of (oh I don't know Brexit-inspired) bad growth followed by good growth then that good growth will relatively make us less well off compared with the damage done by the next years of bad growth. The further out the growth is the less impact it has on our current wealth.
@Philip_Thompson as an economist knows this but seems to want to ignore it for the purposes of Brexit.
I don't ignore it this is the first time I've seen you bring it up and you are 100% correct, Net Present Value is a real issue.
However that doesn't mean we should always prioritise today over the future. Investment is an example of where people forego £'s today in order to get more in the future, using your figures investing £1m today in an investment that expects 7% income means you are 4% better in foregoing £1m today.
On a compound basis if you can generate 7% annual growth and inflation is 2.5% then foregoing £1m today gives you £1.967m in nominal terms a decade later, or £1.537m in real terms.
It all depends upon what you think will be the relevant factors over the whole term.
One can see real life examples where countries have a period of low growth followed by periods of higher growth and the higher growth in the future more than overtakes the lower growth of the past. Within the EU Ireland is a prime example of this.
7% growth? We're not China.
PT is talking about returns on investment, rather than growth.
Now, I very much doubt that - across the UK economy - returns on investment are anywhere near 7% real. For the private sector, returns on invested capital are probably around 5%, which works out as 3.5% for debt, and 7% for equity. Returns for government investment are probably a lot lower - quite a lot of its investment will have negative or marginal returns. But let's assume the number is 2%.
Then we have to adjust for inflation, so I suspect the real number is more like 2-2.5% real,
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
The PD means nothing, it’s just a statement of understanding. The backstop is in the WA, and if that document doesn’t change then it’s no deal.
That's not strictly true.
Under international arbitration they would look at the complete agreement - it's just that where the two conflicted (which I'm sure they do), then the WA has precedence.
Which is why, from the EU side, they’re happy to write anything in the PD, but won’t change a single letter of the WA, which is the primary legal treaty document containing all the backstop language.
I'm supremely relaxed about the backstop, because - so long as the people of Northern Ireland made it clear via either their elected representatives or a referendum that they wished to leave the backstop - we would be obliged to tell the EU that under Article 1 of the UN Treaty, the people of Northern Ireland have a right to self determination, and therefore we would be exiting. And it is not possible for any treaty between the UK and a third party to supercede our obligations under those treaties.
Now, the EU might scream and shout at this point, but there would be fundamentally nothing they could do. And, from a matter of morality, this is correct. We cannot allow Article 1 to be superceded by an agreement with the EU. And any international arbitration would look at the UK's existing treaty commitments.
Good point. Unfortunately, our noble parliamentarians seem not to understand it.
The EU appears already to me to have changed its position. They are now saying they won't change the WA but, are prepared to change the PD. When Theresa asked for that they refused and changed it to be worse if I remember rightly.
If you're perfectly happy to believe that, I'm perfectly happy to let you...
My recollection was you have got it wrong, Eu were happy for the PD to change but inflexible on WA. the PD was what May used to snare Corbyn on basis EU happy to see it changed. Come, put whatsoever you want on the PD then vote for the WA was the call. But once we do that, and vote through WA, new PM can rip the PD up can’t they, was Labours response. Let’s be honest the PD has little meaning and to prove the point it will be interesting to see how much the Johnson Regime now changes it.
On topic the answer is no, no pressure on Corbyn from any of this this week. If anything the Boris Bounce is a good excuse they didnt have a few weeks ago. “It’s not as bad as that these are just short lived Boris bounce polls”.
Comments
@Philip_Thompson as an economist knows this but seems to want to ignore it for the purposes of Brexit.
Often quite substantially.
November 1978
Callaghan net rating plus 14
Thatcher net rating minus 13
January 1979
Callaghan net rating minus 31
Thatcher net rating plus 5
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1977-1987
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not an actuary. I worked alongside them)
When someone lies so blatantly about things that are a matter of public record, what chance do we stand of getting any truth from them about things that aren't?
Best PM ratings aren't as good as net satisfaction ratings, from 1979 onwards every party leader that has led on satisfaction ratings has won the general election.
Here's the Ipsos MORI figures on net satisfaction from 1977 onwards
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1977-1987
Best PM is a bit hit and miss, in 1970 and 1979 Wilson and Callaghan led on best PM but lost the election.
Unfortunately most of the pollsters that polled back in 1970 and 1979 no longer poll in the UK, so you'd have go and read the election books by Buttler et al to see the figures.
https://twitter.com/stevebarclay/status/1156922280158683136?s=21
As far as the next GE is concerned, timing is everything. If there was an election this month, Labour would be in serious trouble. Luckily the election won't come till a point when things will be much more difficult for Johnson.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.159853905
Cheats should never prosper.
It would have sent a message to the world that cheating is never permissible.
https://twitter.com/elashton/status/1156973782617206785
If Boris were to repeat that we would be in a very well hung parliament.
I wouldn't have mentioned that if I were her. Stick to the dying aunt line. She would have known how this works when she defected. No point moaning now.
The Aussies would have dropped him faster than Wavell Hinds.
This is like a general implementing a strategy that would have worked before the barbarians were at the gate, let alone through it.
However that doesn't mean we should always prioritise today over the future. Investment is an example of where people forego £'s today in order to get more in the future, using your figures investing £1m today in an investment that expects 7% income means you are 4% better in foregoing £1m today.
On a compound basis if you can generate 7% annual growth and inflation is 2.5% then foregoing £1m today gives you £1.967m in nominal terms a decade later, or £1.537m in real terms.
It all depends upon what you think will be the relevant factors over the whole term.
One can see real life examples where countries have a period of low growth followed by periods of higher growth and the higher growth in the future more than overtakes the lower growth of the past. Within the EU Ireland is a prime example of this.
Under international arbitration they would look at the complete agreement - it's just that where the two conflicted (which I'm sure they do), then the WA has precedence.
Instead, we're not asking for an extension. And it's not clear that even the WA without the backstop would now pass.
It was a hypothetical example to mathematically demonstrate the point [and on a microeconomic level many companies investing will look for 7%+ returns on investment].
We've no chance of getting him out without Anderson, and if we can't get him out we'll be lucky not to lose 5-0.
284-9
That was a day of two bowling performances.
Right. England will have four balls at Nathan Lyon.
79.4 overs
Nathan Lyon drives for four.
Nae luck.
About 130 runs too late, however.
284 isn't a great result having opted to bat. However, given the fragility of England's batting it will be a test for them.
England need to go big here. Bat patiently and bat long is the watchword.
So naturally they will bat like headless chickens and be all out for 110.
Now the batsmen have 15 difficult minutes at the crease at the end of the day.
A pair of night watchmen?
Still - hard to be that sympathetic to Ms Wollaston: actions have consequences. Why should someone with just as much constituency business have a smaller office while she has a big one?
Ridiculous given we're already passed the time for close of play, but hey.
Maybe it will be like 2001, where Caddick and Thorpe conjured 291 from nowhere and then Michael Slater and Matthew Hayden put that in rather abrupt perspective.
And then again - maybe not...
Was there a rain delay? It rained hard enough here at about 5.30.
Edit: there was maybe one over lost to the “rain” earlier, but they came back on a minute after they went off.
"My friends, the EU has chosen No Deal. The British Government tried as hard as anybody could, but they refused. It could have been a brighter future if it wasn't for their intransigence. But just as it did during WW2 the British people are strong and we will achieve the sunlit uplands. The more revalued pound at £1=$1 will make exports much more competitive and I am pleased to announce a new trade deal with our natural allies the Americans that will help in our task. GMO crops, cheap food, the world is ours! "
(Except that you can't now live there nor buy anything from there...
Now, the EU might scream and shout at this point, but there would be fundamentally nothing they could do. And, from a matter of morality, this is correct. We cannot allow Article 1 to be superceded by an agreement with the EU. And any international arbitration would look at the UK's existing treaty commitments.
Surely all the reviews had an impact too? Considering how many mistakes the Umpires made today it would be harsh to fine England when the Umpires were responsible for a fair amount of time lost too.
And I suspect timewasting will go on.
However, it might also be that the clock at Edgbaston is a bit fast.
Several possible explanations, in other words.
Now, I very much doubt that - across the UK economy - returns on investment are anywhere near 7% real. For the private sector, returns on invested capital are probably around 5%, which works out as 3.5% for debt, and 7% for equity. Returns for government investment are probably a lot lower - quite a lot of its investment will have negative or marginal returns. But let's assume the number is 2%.
Then we have to adjust for inflation, so I suspect the real number is more like 2-2.5% real,
Relax. We’ll hit 450+ and grind them into the dust
Oh, it's widened. 1Q18 was $113bn. 1Q19 was $130bn.
See: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account
https://twitter.com/OpinionaT_R/status/1156905102118137856?s=20