The point is that the majority for Brexit in the referendum was 1,269,501. None of this other rubbish matters.
Many of whom have now either died or changed their minds.
Non-statistical anecdote alert. Not one of my friends have changed their minds Leave -> Remain. Two have gone Remain -> Leave. My friends are rational professionals who don't discuss politics between them.
The Leave -> Remain switchers will be keeping quiet about it. No-one likes to admit to be made fools of.
Actually, I know three people who have done just that. They were never very committed leavers in the first place so it means absolutely nothing. But all 3 are adamant that they never expected or wanted a No Deal Brexit.
There's also been little comment on here about the England Team for the 2nd Test.
I rather fancied England for this but the odds were too short so I held back. I'm glad I did. The squad includes two bowlers of questionable fitness, and a wicketkeeper/batsmen who is out of form in both respects.
I've backed the Aussies at 2.4 but to modest stakes because the weather is uncertain and the draw may yet come into play.
In one year's time we will have been out the EU for 10 months (give or take).
At which point, there will have been an economic impact of some magnitude, and in some direction. No one, whatever they might say, knows.
There will also be winners and losers. Even if it's an enormous success, some people will be losers. And even if it's a lamentable failure, there will be people who've done well.
And there are external factors too. If the world lurches into a recession, then people in the UK will blame Brexit. (Just as people in the UK blame diminished economic growth in the post 2000 period on the EU, even though all developed countries have seen similar slowdowns.)
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Nobody is applying the theory of swingback to these polls. Why not?
This is essentially mid-term for Brexit. That support for it is still pretty much within margin of error of more than opposition to it should under normal circumstances, e.g. if it were a government (e.g. with an opposition not led by a racist trotskyite, hypothetically speaking), be remarkable.
Mid term? You think we'll be back in by 2022? I can't fault your optimism.
I think the process will have completed one way or another by 2022, in that we'll either be in with no Parliamentary majority for reopening the question, albeing many angry leave voters, our out with a pretty clear outline of the future relationship, or a general election fought on the basis largely of competing visions for the future relationship.
There's been little comment on here yet about the remarks by Joe Moore on The World at One about the means by which Parliament might stop Brexit.
In short, he thought the VONC route was possible but difficult. Indeed the indications were that Boris/Cummings didn't really fear that much. They were much more anxious about the House seizing control of the Legislative Agenda. This would enable it pass legislation binding the PM.
Anybody else hear it? He seemed to know what he was talking about. I tried name checking him on Wiki but without success. I think he was advisor to Theresa May on Legislative Affairs, but I didn't quite catch the title.
I thought that wasn't possible as Parliament cannot in act any law that has a budgetary impact and revoking / remaining in the EU has a budgetary impact unless the speaker is being generous (i.e. status quo = no change in budget)..
I suspect the great unknown is during a VONC what can be enacted. Could you VONC insist on an extension / Revoke and watch Boris go cap in hand to do one or the other in preference to campaigning from a cell in the Tower of London...
There's also been little comment on here about the England Team for the 2nd Test.
I rather fancied England for this but the odds were too short so I held back. I'm glad I did. The squad includes two bowlers of questionable fitness, and a wicketkeeper/batsmen who is out of form in both respects.
I've backed the Aussies at 2.4 but to modest stakes because the weather is uncertain and the draw may yet come into play.
Leach for Moeen is clearly the right choice. If Archer can bowl 20 overs at full pace he should be fit for a Test.
The smart move would be to drop Bairstow for Curran. But it won't happen.
Indeed. Would be a brave PM to go to the polls on c32% of the vote, with your only policy and personal approval ratings so low. You simply cannot rely on the following three things happening. 1) The opposition splitting perfectly to allow you to win. 2) The opposition being confused as to which Party is able to beat you in any given seat. 3) The opposition being unwilling to vote tactically to defeat you. No sign of that in recent by-elections. Of course GEs have been won on low shares before, most recently in 2005. The difference being that that government was proposing a continuation of the status quo, not the most revolutionary shake up of the political and economic system since 1945 at least. Even a Tory win on those figures would be a poison chalice.
Would a vote of 32% really be a mandate for anything?
Brexiteer Chorus (within microseconds of seeing the question): "YES!!"
But really? If Corbyn won a majority on 32% and wanted to revoke, would he have a mandate to do it?
HYUFD 's point above about a big reduction in LDs tactical voting for LAB is spot on. That will be reduced markedly.
It will vary from place to place. Watson may well benefit for example, but Chris Williamson and co? no chance.
Tom Watson? Seriously?
He may be a voice of sanity on Labour's current travails with racism but let us not forget he is also a treacherous, dishonest bully with a track record of fake news and incompetence.
It has come to something when he looks a more reasonable option than the official leader.
Anyway if Labour lose WBW then it doesn't matter who votes for them, they're still finished.
Sure, his Pedofinder general schtick was more than a bit iffy, but he makes up for it with his fight with the anti semites and for a #peoplesvote.
He wasn't the only one to make the Pedofinder mistake although he shouldn't have pinned his case exclusively on Beech's testimony, if that's what he did. Personally I'm not convinced there was no fire creating some of the smoke, but it seems unlikely this will ever be investigated again.
On the other matters you mention he is perfectly sound and is the kind of traditional Labour man who might become a rallying point should the Party ever recover from its current state.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
The most critical failure to compromise was when the EU handed David Cameron a shitty deal to come back and sell to the British people.
There's also been little comment on here about the England Team for the 2nd Test.
I rather fancied England for this but the odds were too short so I held back. I'm glad I did. The squad includes two bowlers of questionable fitness, and a wicketkeeper/batsmen who is out of form in both respects.
I've backed the Aussies at 2.4 but to modest stakes because the weather is uncertain and the draw may yet come into play.
Leach for Moeen is clearly the right choice. If Archer can bowl 20 overs at full pace he should be fit for a Test.
The smart move would be to drop Bairstow for Curran. But it won't happen.
Why isn't Foakes in the side? Bairstow and Buttler are both decent keepers but Foakes is better, and he's a proper batsman, in decent form with Middlesex. He's shown he has Test Match temperament too.
In fact if they picked him they could drop either Bairstow or Buttler, who is also out of form.
Nobody is applying the theory of swingback to these polls. Why not?
This is essentially mid-term for Brexit. That support for it is still pretty much within margin of error of more than opposition to it should under normal circumstances, e.g. if it were a government (e.g. with an opposition not led by a racist trotskyite, hypothetically speaking), be remarkable.
It doesn’t work like that for policies.
Governments do badly in mid term because only they are doing stuff, and changing things usually aggravates people more than it wins friends, particular as most governments have to do a mix of potentially popular and unpopular things, and there is hardly any voter gratitude in politics.
This all changes come election time, because suddenly there are two potential governments, and people measure them up one against each other. Yes, the one in power still tends to lose votes, because of those still dissatisfied folk, but there are lot more who were willing to protest in mid term who come back because they dislike the alternative.
For an unpopular policy moving toward implementation simply makes things worse. And for those that like it, there isn’t as I said any gratitude in politics.
HYUFD 's point above about a big reduction in LDs tactical voting for LAB is spot on. That will be reduced markedly.
I think the next UK GE in Scotland is going to be the most “honest” for decades. Tactical voting will be minimal, which is counterintuitive as England adopts it big time.
Pro-Union (UK)/pro-Union (EU) people are going to vote Lib Dem. Tories are going to vote Tory. Pro-self-government-inclined people are going to vote SNP. Batshit crazy English nationalists are going to vote Brexit Party. Vote-Labour-even-if-the-candidate-is-a-donkey people are going to largely sit on the sofa and try to pretend that this ain’t happening.
This spells disaster for SLab and SCons, and big smiles for Nicola and Jo.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
That was Cameron's problem - he should have offered his deal or Full EU integration and won at a canter...
We would then be suitably positioned in the EU while allowing the rest of the EU to work on complete integration...
No I'm not saying that. I explained what I said and if you don't understand it I will explain it further.
COGS or Cost Of Goods Sold is only one element in the price you pay. Often it can actually be a surprisingly small element. A retailer [and consumers do buy from retailers not from other countries] that is selling you a good will have other factors involved in their supply chain and other factors involved in their business, not all of which will be imported. And the fact that you said "other things being equal" as opposed to what you think it means, will mean they MUST still have elements from the UK in their price.
For instance at its most basic level a retailer that you shop with must have staff. Those staff will be paid in pounds sterling. When you said "other things being equal" are their wages going up 33%? A retailer that you shop with will have rent to pay, when you said "other things being equal" is their rent going up 33%? A retailer that you shop with will have rates [corporate equivalent of Council Tax] to pay, when you said "other things being equal" are their rates going up 33%?
Etc, etc, etc - there are a lot of fixed costs that are in sterling, COGS is only one element in their price.
Finally the retailer will be making a margin. Now you've assumed that the only option is the price goes up 33% or the business makes a smaller margin. However even if all costs did go up 33% [which is obviously not the case] if the price went up 33% then the businesses cash profit margin is also going up up 33%. When you said all else being equal were you meaning businesses cash profit margins would go up 33%?
My God - my sympathy really goes out to the people who tried to teach you economics.
You don't read properly, you can't understand what you do read, and you jump to all kinds of wild conclusions and put all kinds of ridiculous things into people's mouths.
In words of one syllable (or as close as I can get): If a British purchaser buys something from a foreign vendor then the loss of value of sterling you are predicting will imply, OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, that the purchaser will have to pay the vendor 33% more in sterling.
I am making no assumptions about margins, staff costs, or anything else. All that stuff is in your mind.
The question is what happens to that additional cost. Is it passed on to the consumer, or is it absorbed by the business or businesses in the supply chain?
That's a simple question for you. You've said the effect on prices to the consumer will be marginal. You need to explain how that's possible.
If a business has huge margins, then it may be able to absorb the extra costs. But if we're talking about supermarkets, where the margin is apparently only 1-2%, how does this work? You need to explain it, and stop blathering about all the irrelevant stuff you're imagining.
There's also been little comment on here about the England Team for the 2nd Test.
I rather fancied England for this but the odds were too short so I held back. I'm glad I did. The squad includes two bowlers of questionable fitness, and a wicketkeeper/batsmen who is out of form in both respects.
I've backed the Aussies at 2.4 but to modest stakes because the weather is uncertain and the draw may yet come into play.
Leach for Moeen is clearly the right choice. If Archer can bowl 20 overs at full pace he should be fit for a Test.
The smart move would be to drop Bairstow for Curran. But it won't happen.
Why isn't Foakes in the side? Bairstow and Buttler are both decent keepers but Foakes is better, and he's a proper batsman, in decent form with Middlesex. He's shown he has Test Match temperament too.
In fact if they picked him they could drop either Bairstow or Buttler, who is also out of form.
Ben Foakes plays for Surrey.
As for decent form recent first class innings read 7, 8, 7, 60, 0, 40, 12, 30, 62, 2, 57. That's not 'decent form.' This season he averages 30 with a high score of 69.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
No. Cameron's deal was no where near enough to deal with the most basic issues that people had with the EU. I know that for you as a devout federalist even the tiniest move away from the unifying agenda would seem like a massive leap but for even the mildest of Eurosceptics it was simply not even a start. And I say that as someone who was more than happy to stay in the Single Market and retain freedom of movement.
The critical failures occurred over the decades preceding 2016 when successive Governments tied us closer and closer to the EU without allowing any say on the matter by the public. The godparents of Brexit were Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
The most critical failure to compromise was when the EU handed David Cameron a shitty deal to come back and sell to the British people.
Yes, that wasn't Juncker's finest hour. I think he regretted it later, especially when it looked for a while as though Brexit could destabilise the whole EU project.
It seems to have rebounded in his favour now though. Not much appetite evident these days amongst the remaining EU Members to follow our example.
HYUFD 's point above about a big reduction in LDs tactical voting for LAB is spot on. That will be reduced markedly.
I think the next UK GE in Scotland is going to be the most “honest” for decades. Tactical voting will be minimal, which is counterintuitive as England adopts it big time.
Pro-Union (UK)/pro-Union (EU) people are going to vote Lib Dem. Tories are going to vote Tory. Pro-self-government-inclined people are going to vote SNP. Batshit crazy English nationalists are going to vote Brexit Party. Vote-Labour-even-if-the-candidate-is-a-donkey people are going to largely sit on the sofa and try to pretend that this ain’t happening.
This spells disaster for SLab and SCons, and big smiles for Nicola and Jo.
Considering 38% of Scots voted for Brexit how will they split?
Indeed. Would be a brave PM to go to the polls on c32% of the vote, with your only policy and personal approval ratings so low. You simply cannot rely on the following three things happening. 1) The opposition splitting perfectly to allow you to win. 2) The opposition being confused as to which Party is able to beat you in any given seat. 3) The opposition being unwilling to vote tactically to defeat you. No sign of that in recent by-elections. Of course GEs have been won on low shares before, most recently in 2005. The difference being that that government was proposing a continuation of the status quo, not the most revolutionary shake up of the political and economic system since 1945 at least. Even a Tory win on those figures would be a poison chalice.
Would a vote of 32% really be a mandate for anything?
Brexiteer Chorus (within microseconds of seeing the question): "YES!!"
But really? If Corbyn won a majority on 32% and wanted to revoke, would he have a mandate to do it?
I don't believe there is such a thing as a mandate for revoke that does not betray democracy.
But of course under our system if Corbyn or anyone else had a majority on 32% of the vote they can legally do what they want within the boundaries of our system. And that includes revoking.
Besides, I still cling to that old and abused concept that we vote for an MP not a party or party leader. So if there is a majority in Parliament to do something then they can do it. That applies right now as well.
There's been little comment on here yet about the remarks by Joe Moore on The World at One about the means by which Parliament might stop Brexit.
In short, he thought the VONC route was possible but difficult. Indeed the indications were that Boris/Cummings didn't really fear that much. They were much more anxious about the House seizing control of the Legislative Agenda. This would enable it pass legislation binding the PM.
Anybody else hear it? He seemed to know what he was talking about. I tried name checking him on Wiki but without success. I think he was advisor to Theresa May on Legislative Affairs, but I didn't quite catch the title.
I thought that wasn't possible as Parliament cannot in act any law that has a budgetary impact and revoking / remaining in the EU has a budgetary impact unless the speaker is being generous (i.e. status quo = no change in budget)..
I suspect the great unknown is during a VONC what can be enacted. Could you VONC insist on an extension / Revoke and watch Boris go cap in hand to do one or the other in preference to campaigning from a cell in the Tower of London...
Dunno. Moore seemed to think the interest in a VONC was being positively encouraged by Cummings and the Agenda route was therefore being overlooked.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
No. Cameron's deal was no where near enough to deal with the most basic issues that people had with the EU. I know that for you as a devout federalist even the tiniest move away from the unifying agenda would seem like a massive leap but for even the mildest of Eurosceptics it was simply not even a start. And I say that as someone who was more than happy to stay in the Single Market and retain freedom of movement.
The critical failures occurred over the decades preceding 2016 when successive Governments tied us closer and closer to the EU without allowing any say on the matter by the public. The godparents of Brexit were Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
Thatcher -- single market Major -- Maastricht Blair -- Lisbon Brown -- kept us out of the Euro
There's been little comment on here yet about the remarks by Joe Moore on The World at One about the means by which Parliament might stop Brexit.
In short, he thought the VONC route was possible but difficult. Indeed the indications were that Boris/Cummings didn't really fear that much. They were much more anxious about the House seizing control of the Legislative Agenda. This would enable it pass legislation binding the PM.
Anybody else hear it? He seemed to know what he was talking about. I tried name checking him on Wiki but without success. I think he was advisor to Theresa May on Legislative Affairs, but I didn't quite catch the title.
I think the bottom line here is that no one knows until something is tried.
I do hope someone is keeping a note of all these constitutional precedents for future reference.
HYUFD 's point above about a big reduction in LDs tactical voting for LAB is spot on. That will be reduced markedly.
I think the next UK GE in Scotland is going to be the most “honest” for decades. Tactical voting will be minimal, which is counterintuitive as England adopts it big time.
Pro-Union (UK)/pro-Union (EU) people are going to vote Lib Dem. Tories are going to vote Tory. Pro-self-government-inclined people are going to vote SNP. Batshit crazy English nationalists are going to vote Brexit Party. Vote-Labour-even-if-the-candidate-is-a-donkey people are going to largely sit on the sofa and try to pretend that this ain’t happening.
This spells disaster for SLab and SCons, and big smiles for Nicola and Jo.
This is such crap. There are thousands of people like me who will vote Anti-Separatist in their seat be it LD/Tory/BXP or if they haven't been paying attention Labour.
Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
No. Cameron's deal was no where near enough to deal with the most basic issues that people had with the EU. I know that for you as a devout federalist even the tiniest move away from the unifying agenda would seem like a massive leap but for even the mildest of Eurosceptics it was simply not even a start. And I say that as someone who was more than happy to stay in the Single Market and retain freedom of movement.
The critical failures occurred over the decades preceding 2016 when successive Governments tied us closer and closer to the EU without allowing any say on the matter by the public. The godparents of Brexit were Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
Yes, that's pretty much how I see it, Richard.
In its early days, EUrophiles used to debate whether it was better to deepen or broaden the Union. In the end, it tried to do both, and nearly disintegrated as a result.
One of the (true) virtues of Brexit is that it has made the whole EU debate throughout Europe more vibrant and realistic. There is less talk of Federalism these days. Personally I regard that as a good thing.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
No. Cameron's deal was no where near enough to deal with the most basic issues that people had with the EU. I know that for you as a devout federalist even the tiniest move away from the unifying agenda would seem like a massive leap but for even the mildest of Eurosceptics it was simply not even a start. And I say that as someone who was more than happy to stay in the Single Market and retain freedom of movement.
The critical failures occurred over the decades preceding 2016 when successive Governments tied us closer and closer to the EU without allowing any say on the matter by the public. The godparents of Brexit were Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
Thatcher -- single market Major -- Maastricht Blair -- Lisbon Brown -- kept us out of the Euro
One of these things is not like the others.
It was Brown who refused a referendum and signed the Lisbon Treaty.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
No. Cameron's deal was no where near enough to deal with the most basic issues that people had with the EU. I know that for you as a devout federalist even the tiniest move away from the unifying agenda would seem like a massive leap but for even the mildest of Eurosceptics it was simply not even a start. And I say that as someone who was more than happy to stay in the Single Market and retain freedom of movement.
The critical failures occurred over the decades preceding 2016 when successive Governments tied us closer and closer to the EU without allowing any say on the matter by the public. The godparents of Brexit were Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
Thatcher -- single market Major -- Maastricht Blair -- Lisbon Brown -- kept us out of the Euro
One of these things is not like the others.
Brown did sign Lisbon though, admittedly having been left little choice.
In a typical Brown cock-up, he signed it late and out of camera shot, thereby pissing off other European leaders while not placating furious Eurosceptics.
It's true he kept us out of the Euro, which arguably is his great contribution to national life. I wonder though whether he did it because he knew it was the wrong choice, or because he wanted to annoy Blair?
There's been little comment on here yet about the remarks by Joe Moore on The World at One about the means by which Parliament might stop Brexit.
In short, he thought the VONC route was possible but difficult. Indeed the indications were that Boris/Cummings didn't really fear that much. They were much more anxious about the House seizing control of the Legislative Agenda. This would enable it pass legislation binding the PM.
Anybody else hear it? He seemed to know what he was talking about. I tried name checking him on Wiki but without success. I think he was advisor to Theresa May on Legislative Affairs, but I didn't quite catch the title.
I think the bottom line here is that no one knows until something is tried.
I do hope someone is keeping a note of all these constitutional precedents for future reference.
The point is that the majority for Brexit in the referendum was 1,269,501. None of this other rubbish matters.
Many of whom have now either died or changed their minds.
Non-statistical anecdote alert. Not one of my friends have changed their minds Leave -> Remain. Two have gone Remain -> Leave. My friends are rational professionals who don't discuss politics between them.
Important articles today, firstly by Robert Peston suggesting that Cummings' and Johnson's interests may not be fully aligned. Cummings is focused entirely on delivering a hard Brexit by October and isn't much interested in what happens to the Johnson regime afterwards. Explains some of the baffling policy moves
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
That was Cameron's problem - he should have offered his deal or Full EU integration and won at a canter...
We would then be suitably positioned in the EU while allowing the rest of the EU to work on complete integration...
The problem with that, even insignificant as it was, is it would never have lasted. Britain being outside the system even by the tiniest amount would have prevented the EU from continuing in an integrationist manner. They knew perfectly well that in a decade or so, when we were even more entwined, they would be able to present us with an ultimatum and leaving would have been even more difficult.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
No. Cameron's deal was no where near enough to deal with the most basic issues that people had with the EU. I know that for you as a devout federalist even the tiniest move away from the unifying agenda would seem like a massive leap but for even the mildest of Eurosceptics it was simply not even a start. And I say that as someone who was more than happy to stay in the Single Market and retain freedom of movement.
The critical failures occurred over the decades preceding 2016 when successive Governments tied us closer and closer to the EU without allowing any say on the matter by the public. The godparents of Brexit were Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
Thatcher -- single market Major -- Maastricht Blair -- Lisbon Brown -- kept us out of the Euro
One of these things is not like the others.
Brown did sign Lisbon though, admittedly having been left little choice.
In a typical Brown cock-up, he signed it late and out of camera shot, thereby pissing off other European leaders while not placating furious Eurosceptics.
It's true he kept us out of the Euro, which arguably is his great contribution to national life. I wonder though whether he did it because he knew it was the wrong choice, or because he wanted to annoy Blair?
Cobblers. We all owe him a debt for his handling of the Banking Crisis. Apart from that he was crap.
I think he was genuinely against the Euro too, but I'm not sure if it was on economic or political grounds.
Nobody is applying the theory of swingback to these polls. Why not?
This is essentially mid-term for Brexit. That support for it is still pretty much within margin of error of more than opposition to it should under normal circumstances, e.g. if it were a government (e.g. with an opposition not led by a racist trotskyite, hypothetically speaking), be remarkable.
It may already have happened when compared to EU elections.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
No. Cameron's deal was no where near enough to deal with the most basic issues that people had with the EU. I know that for you as a devout federalist even the tiniest move away from the unifying agenda would seem like a massive leap but for even the mildest of Eurosceptics it was simply not even a start. And I say that as someone who was more than happy to stay in the Single Market and retain freedom of movement.
The critical failures occurred over the decades preceding 2016 when successive Governments tied us closer and closer to the EU without allowing any say on the matter by the public. The godparents of Brexit were Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
Thatcher -- single market Major -- Maastricht Blair -- Lisbon Brown -- kept us out of the Euro
One of these things is not like the others.
Brown did sign Lisbon though, admittedly having been left little choice.
In a typical Brown cock-up, he signed it late and out of camera shot, thereby pissing off other European leaders while not placating furious Eurosceptics.
It's true he kept us out of the Euro, which arguably is his great contribution to national life. I wonder though whether he did it because he knew it was the wrong choice, or because he wanted to annoy Blair?
Cobblers. We all owe him a debt for his handling of the Banking Crisis. Apart from that he was crap.
I think he was genuinely against the Euro too, but I'm not sure if it was on economic or political grounds.
I can't give him credit for his handling of the banking crisis when if not caused it was at the very least hugely exacerbated by his incompetence and complacency.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
That was Cameron's problem - he should have offered his deal or Full EU integration and won at a canter...
We would then be suitably positioned in the EU while allowing the rest of the EU to work on complete integration...
The problem with that, even insignificant as it was, is it would never have lasted. Britain being outside the system even by the tiniest amount would have prevented the EU from continuing in an integrationist manner. They knew perfectly well that in a decade or so, when we were even more entwined, they would be able to present us with an ultimatum and leaving would have been even more difficult.
You are inventing history there. We would have been removed from the rest of the EU with our defined interests (i.e. the areas we had a say in) and would have enabled the rest of europe to actually integrate.
The best description would be a the Norway model but with a continued say in the areas we care about (regulations, trade deals)..
Instead we will leave, end up with annoyed neighbours and need to sign up for the equivalent of the backstop before negotiating a trade deal from a position of weakness.
Having driven the best part of 2,000 miles in France over the last week I can confirm that the French are arguably the worst drivers in Europe. They are lunatics.
Having driven the best part of 2,000 miles in France over the last week I can confirm that the French are arguably the worst drivers in Europe. They are lunatics.
Having driven the best part of 2,000 miles in France over the last week I can confirm that the French are arguably the worst drivers in Europe. They are lunatics.
HYUFD 's point above about a big reduction in LDs tactical voting for LAB is spot on. That will be reduced markedly.
Indeed and while the LDs will make gains in some Tory Remain southern and London marginals the Tories will make gains in Labour Leave marginals in the North and Midlands and Wales as a result
I'm not so sure. For most LDs in a Labour seat supporting the Labour candidate to win the seat may still be the sanest choice (and I am regardless of my referendum vote a LD at heart)..
In the North, Midlands and Wales the Tories need to decide which seats they wish to win, which they have zero chance in and do a deal as quietly as possible with Nigel for the Brexit party to do an administration cock up and fail to list candidates. Otherwise Nigel will cost Boris an awful lot of seats..
On yesterday's Yougov there will be a 3.5% Labour to Tory swing in Labour marginals even if the Brexit Party stand in every one
No - the swing was 3.25%. Comres suggest a 1.7% swing to Labour.
Having driven the best part of 2,000 miles in France over the last week I can confirm that the French are arguably the worst drivers in Europe. They are lunatics.
Should Boris succeed in delaying an election until after 31st October 2019 in the event of a VONC and efforts to secure an alternative government without a GE fail, will TBP even field candidates for such an election, given that their reason for existing would have already been accomplished.
If they do withdraw, I suspect very few of their votes will go to the tories as most of the tory defectors to TBP would have returned already. Most will probably not vote or perhaps vote for UKIP
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
No. Cameron's deal was no where near enough to deal with the most basic issues that people had with the EU. I know that for you as a devout federalist even the tiniest move away from the unifying agenda would seem like a massive leap but for even the mildest of Eurosceptics it was simply not even a start. And I say that as someone who was more than happy to stay in the Single Market and retain freedom of movement.
The critical failures occurred over the decades preceding 2016 when successive Governments tied us closer and closer to the EU without allowing any say on the matter by the public. The godparents of Brexit were Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
Thatcher -- single market Major -- Maastricht Blair -- Lisbon Brown -- kept us out of the Euro
One of these things is not like the others.
Brown did sign Lisbon though, admittedly having been left little choice.
In a typical Brown cock-up, he signed it late and out of camera shot, thereby pissing off other European leaders while not placating furious Eurosceptics.
It's true he kept us out of the Euro, which arguably is his great contribution to national life. I wonder though whether he did it because he knew it was the wrong choice, or because he wanted to annoy Blair?
Cobblers. We all owe him a debt for his handling of the Banking Crisis. Apart from that he was crap.
I think he was genuinely against the Euro too, but I'm not sure if it was on economic or political grounds.
I can't give him credit for his handling of the banking crisis when if not caused it was at the very least hugely exacerbated by his incompetence and complacency.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
There's been little comment on here yet about the remarks by Joe Moore on The World at One about the means by which Parliament might stop Brexit.
In short, he thought the VONC route was possible but difficult. Indeed the indications were that Boris/Cummings didn't really fear that much. They were much more anxious about the House seizing control of the Legislative Agenda. This would enable it pass legislation binding the PM.
Anybody else hear it? He seemed to know what he was talking about. I tried name checking him on Wiki but without success. I think he was advisor to Theresa May on Legislative Affairs, but I didn't quite catch the title.
I thought that wasn't possible as Parliament cannot in act any law that has a budgetary impact and revoking / remaining in the EU has a budgetary impact unless the speaker is being generous (i.e. status quo = no change in budget)..
I suspect the great unknown is during a VONC what can be enacted. Could you VONC insist on an extension / Revoke and watch Boris go cap in hand to do one or the other in preference to campaigning from a cell in the Tower of London...
Dunno. Moore seemed to think the interest in a VONC was being positively encouraged by Cummings and the Agenda route was therefore being overlooked.
I really don't know.
Moore is Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10 10 under Theresa May. And you're right, the Cummings VoNC thing is a distraction, a bit like the Br'er Rabbit briar bush protestation.
What the govt most fears is parliament taking control of the order paper. But if they do this they must use it to pass legislation.
There's been little comment on here yet about the remarks by Joe Moore on The World at One about the means by which Parliament might stop Brexit.
In short, he thought the VONC route was possible but difficult. Indeed the indications were that Boris/Cummings didn't really fear that much. They were much more anxious about the House seizing control of the Legislative Agenda. This would enable it pass legislation binding the PM.
Anybody else hear it? He seemed to know what he was talking about. I tried name checking him on Wiki but without success. I think he was advisor to Theresa May on Legislative Affairs, but I didn't quite catch the title.
I thought that wasn't possible as Parliament cannot in act any law that has a budgetary impact and revoking / remaining in the EU has a budgetary impact unless the speaker is being generous (i.e. status quo = no change in budget)..
I suspect the great unknown is during a VONC what can be enacted. Could you VONC insist on an extension / Revoke and watch Boris go cap in hand to do one or the other in preference to campaigning from a cell in the Tower of London...
Dunno. Moore seemed to think the interest in a VONC was being positively encouraged by Cummings and the Agenda route was therefore being overlooked.
I really don't know.
Moore is Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10 10 under Theresa May. And you're right, the Cummings VoNC thing is a distraction, a bit like the Br'er Rabbit briar bush protestation.
What the govt most fears is parliament taking control of the order paper. But if they do this they must use it to pass legislation.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
That was Cameron's problem - he should have offered his deal or Full EU integration and won at a canter...
We would then be suitably positioned in the EU while allowing the rest of the EU to work on complete integration...
The problem with that, even insignificant as it was, is it would never have lasted. Britain being outside the system even by the tiniest amount would have prevented the EU from continuing in an integrationist manner. They knew perfectly well that in a decade or so, when we were even more entwined, they would be able to present us with an ultimatum and leaving would have been even more difficult.
You are inventing history there. We would have been removed from the rest of the EU with our defined interests (i.e. the areas we had a say in) and would have enabled the rest of europe to actually integrate.
The best description would be a the Norway model but with a continued say in the areas we care about (regulations, trade deals)..
Instead we will leave, end up with annoyed neighbours and need to sign up for the equivalent of the backstop before negotiating a trade deal from a position of weakness.
Not at all. It is you who are re-writing history, or perhaps just not understanding it. The idea that we would have been removed from the EU in any way is farcical. We would still have been subject to QMV in all significant areas and integration would have continued with us eventually being forced to accept full integration. Just look at what happened when Cameron thought he could block the EU using their institutions as part of the Greek bailout. They basically ignored him and made him look a complete fool. They proved how useless his veto really was.
Having driven the best part of 2,000 miles in France over the last week I can confirm that the French are arguably the worst drivers in Europe. They are lunatics.
Lunatic drivers? Try India
I used to believe that if you could drive in London you could drive anywhere in the world, until I went to India.
I have this theory that the reason French drivers are so bad is because their roads are so good.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
That was Cameron's problem - he should have offered his deal or Full EU integration and won at a canter...
We would then be suitably positioned in the EU while allowing the rest of the EU to work on complete integration...
The problem with that, even insignificant as it was, is it would never have lasted. Britain being outside the system even by the tiniest amount would have prevented the EU from continuing in an integrationist manner. They knew perfectly well that in a decade or so, when we were even more entwined, they would be able to present us with an ultimatum and leaving would have been even more difficult.
You are inventing history there. We would have been removed from the rest of the EU with our defined interests (i.e. the areas we had a say in) and would have enabled the rest of europe to actually integrate.
The best description would be a the Norway model but with a continued say in the areas we care about (regulations, trade deals)..
Instead we will leave, end up with annoyed neighbours and need to sign up for the equivalent of the backstop before negotiating a trade deal from a position of weakness.
Not at all. It is you who are re-writing history, or perhaps just not understanding it. The idea that we would have been removed from the EU in any way is farcical. We would still have been subject to QMV in all significant areas and integration would have continued with us eventually being forced to accept full integration. Just look at what happened when Cameron thought he could block the EU using their institutions as part of the Greek bailout. They basically ignored him and made him look a complete fool. They proved how useless his veto really was.
You're conflating being able to block the rest of the EU from doing something with being forced to take part in it.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
Kind of on-topic, if we do eventually revoke what sort of relationship with the EU will we have afterwards in any event. Even before the referendum we have also had a degree of associate member status with our opt out from the Euro and other various bits and pieces that we didn't have to sign up. With Europe committed to a Macron driven closer integration agenda, where would that leave us - probably not liked by the EU that much given the baggage of the last 3 years and probably not overly comfortable. It wouldn't be long before any woes would be blamed, often incorrectly, on Europe and the pressure to leave again would probably build up quite quickly.
We might be better off going for a full on membership, but Joe Public would never sign up to that.
Personally, although I am fairly agnostic on Brexit overall (I believe in the long term we are economically marginally better off staying in, but have a mild dislike of the EU institutions and the historic behaviour), I think we should just leave now.
But if we do stay, our interests would be better served perhaps by playing a fuller role and integrating, even if it were to mean the Euro etc.
Nobody is applying the theory of swingback to these polls. Why not?
This is essentially mid-term for Brexit. That support for it is still pretty much within margin of error of more than opposition to it should under normal circumstances, e.g. if it were a government (e.g. with an opposition not led by a racist trotskyite, hypothetically speaking), be remarkable.
It doesn’t work like that for policies.
Governments do badly in mid term because only they are doing stuff, and changing things usually aggravates people more than it wins friends, particular as most governments have to do a mix of potentially popular and unpopular things, and there is hardly any voter gratitude in politics.
This all changes come election time, because suddenly there are two potential governments, and people measure them up one against each other. Yes, the one in power still tends to lose votes, because of those still dissatisfied folk, but there are lot more who were willing to protest in mid term who come back because they dislike the alternative.
For an unpopular policy moving toward implementation simply makes things worse. And for those that like it, there isn’t as I said any gratitude in politics.
To my mind that's exactly what is happening, though. All the news is about the risks of No Deal Brexit. None of it is about the daft new EU rules coming down the line, because the assumption is that the people who care about them will shrug and go "yeah but we're leaving".
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
I have read it. Several times.
I also noted where it missed out crucial failures by the government to place the blame solely on bankers and the Americans.
As for the rest, if an arsonist puts loads of combustibles in my house, and then puts the fire out when a carelessly discarded fag end ignited them, funny thing is that I wouldn't be grateful. I'd ask why the stupid bastard took such an unnecessary risk in the first place.
And that's roughly how I feel about Brown and the banking crisis.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
I have read it. Several times.
I also noted where it missed out crucial failures by the government to place the blame solely on bankers and the Americans.
As for the rest, if an arsonist puts loads of combustibles in my house, and then puts the fire out when a carelessly discarded fag end ignited them, funny thing is that I wouldn't be grateful. I'd ask why the stupid bastard took such an unnecessary risk in the first place.
And that's roughly how I feel about Brown and the banking crisis.
Several times? I'm impressed!
Nate Silver's book The Signal and the Noise is essentially a book about gambling but it covers the crisis very well and is blistering in its condemnation of the US and its banking institutions.
You might like to read that, if you haven't done so already....several times!
My God - my sympathy really goes out to the people who tried to teach you economics.
You don't read properly, you can't understand what you do read, and you jump to all kinds of wild conclusions and put all kinds of ridiculous things into people's mouths.
In words of one syllable (or as close as I can get): If a British purchaser buys something from a foreign vendor then the loss of value of sterling you are predicting will imply, OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, that the purchaser will have to pay the vendor 33% more in sterling.
I am making no assumptions about margins, staff costs, or anything else. All that stuff is in your mind.
The question is what happens to that additional cost. Is it passed on to the consumer, or is it absorbed by the business or businesses in the supply chain?
That's a simple question for you. You've said the effect on prices to the consumer will be marginal. You need to explain how that's possible.
If a business has huge margins, then it may be able to absorb the extra costs. But if we're talking about supermarkets, where the margin is apparently only 1-2%, how does this work? You need to explain it, and stop blathering about all the irrelevant stuff you're imagining.
Yes the purchaser will pay the vendor 33% more in Sterling, I never said otherwise. That is correct. It is also not my point. My point is that the end consumer is not the purchaser.
The purchaser pays the vendor 33%. This increases the COGS of the purchaser by 33%. Now the purchaser, an importer maybe, will need to pass on a price increase to the next company in the supply chain and every company in the chain will pass on an increase ending in an increase to the consumer. However unless inflation truly lifts off the end consumer will not end up paying 33% more.
If the chain is say Vendor [Foreign] > Importer [Domestic] > Distributor > Retailer > Consumer then the COGS increase will need to be passed along the chain. But the chain can swallow some of the percentage as it gets passed along.
Now if its a finished product that is imported it becomes harder to swallow the percentage as there's smaller margins each step of the way, but if the product gets worked on in this country it will swallow the percentage even more.
Finally the end consumer will buy a basket of goods. Some will have a price hike - and some prices hiked more than others - but other elements of the basket will not be hiked at all.
Possible about 90 cents to the dollar, about 80 cents to the Euro.
What on earth does that mean?
Currently £1 = €1.08 £1 = $1.21
You asked me how low I expect sterling to go and I predicted roughly £1 = €0.80 £1 = $0.90
I'm not sure what everyone else expects but that's my prediction.
The most pessimistic forecast I've seen was a Deutsche Bank one at 1gbp = 0.95eur and 1.15usd. If we take 1.6usd as the pre-2015 average (yes I know you don't like that figure but run with me for a moment) then a drop to 0.8eur and 0.9usd is a drop of over 40% in under four years. That's bigger than the post-ww2 drop, the 1967 devaluation, the 1970s oil shock, the 1990s ERM fall out, or the Brexit night fall. It would be unpleasant.
I know we argue a lot (and will do so again) but I do have to ask: is that prediction based on anything such as a bank report or investigation? It's a contingency I simply haven't considered and I would have to sit down and seriously think how to mitigate it, so I do need to ask.
No its not a formal prediction from a forecast or bank report I don't mean to panic you! Its my own personal speculation, based on expecting the fall to be a bit bigger than reports speculate [as I think there will be an overreaction and even if the mean is say €0.85 there will be variations around that so a trough of €0.80 could be hit. I certainly don't expect that to be a new mean or new normal and I think it will rebound from that trough.
The Deutsche Bank report gave a baseline of 0.95EUR and 1.15USD. I've put together EUR and USD accounts[1] and I am moving money into them as fast as I can in order to mitigate it, with some success: if it goes down to the Deutsche Bank numbers then my GBP profit will be low four figures, which will partially (but not wholly) compensate for the drop in EUR and USD. So far, so good. But there is a limit to the amount I can move in any given month, and this coming month is the expensive part of the year in both money and time, as Conference comes up in September. So I don't know if I can move money fast enough to cope with the overshoot you describe. Damn, this is a puzzler and no mistake...
However, thank you for at least pointing out the possibility. It never occurred to me that there could be an overshoot, and of course I should have though of it myself. Still forewarned, forearmed, etc. So thank you for that.
[1] you may recall earlier in the year I wrote an article about my attempt to insure against no-deal by betting failed when we postponed, and currency conversion may be a better method. This is that.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
GB did ok for the UK in the financial crisis but Paulson really sorted it out (at the 2nd attempt).
His record as chancellor is a bit iffy. Lots of money into the NHS to give pay-rises (not saying the doctors and nurses did not deserve it) but left most of the capital investment to PFI which was a disaster and a financial millstone round the neck of the NHS.
To much tinkering with the system, making it more complicated, increasing red tape were features of Brown.
The 10p income tax rate and the 0% corporation tax allowance were both lamentable errors that first year economics students would have no trouble identifying the negative unintended consequences that followed.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
I have read it. Several times.
I also noted where it missed out crucial failures by the government to place the blame solely on bankers and the Americans.
As for the rest, if an arsonist puts loads of combustibles in my house, and then puts the fire out when a carelessly discarded fag end ignited them, funny thing is that I wouldn't be grateful. I'd ask why the stupid bastard took such an unnecessary risk in the first place.
And that's roughly how I feel about Brown and the banking crisis.
Several times? I'm impressed!
Nate Silver's book The Signal and the Noise is essentially a book about gambling but it covers the crisis very well and is blistering in its condemnation of the US and its banking institutions.
You might like to read that, if you haven't done so already....several times!
I teach politics as well as history. The Blair/Brown government comes into that a lot.
Kind of on-topic, if we do eventually revoke what sort of relationship with the EU will we have afterwards in any event. Even before the referendum we have also had a degree of associate member status with our opt out from the Euro and other various bits and pieces that we didn't have to sign up. With Europe committed to a Macron driven closer integration agenda, where would that leave us - probably not liked by the EU that much given the baggage of the last 3 years and probably not overly comfortable. It wouldn't be long before any woes would be blamed, often incorrectly, on Europe and the pressure to leave again would probably build up quite quickly.
We might be better off going for a full on membership, but Joe Public would never sign up to that.
Personally, although I am fairly agnostic on Brexit overall (I believe in the long term we are economically marginally better off staying in, but have a mild dislike of the EU institutions and the historic behaviour), I think we should just leave now.
But if we do stay, our interests would be better served perhaps by playing a fuller role and integrating, even if it were to mean the Euro etc.
The Euro is causing serious structural imbalance within the Eurozone. It is too strong for the southern EZ countries and too weak for Germany. The fact is that the EZ is nowhere near Robert Mundell's notion of "optimal curreny area". The problem would have been exacerbated if the UK had joined the EZ.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
I have read it. Several times.
I also noted where it missed out crucial failures by the government to place the blame solely on bankers and the Americans.
As for the rest, if an arsonist puts loads of combustibles in my house, and then puts the fire out when a carelessly discarded fag end ignited them, funny thing is that I wouldn't be grateful. I'd ask why the stupid bastard took such an unnecessary risk in the first place.
And that's roughly how I feel about Brown and the banking crisis.
Several times? I'm impressed!
Nate Silver's book The Signal and the Noise is essentially a book about gambling but it covers the crisis very well and is blistering in its condemnation of the US and its banking institutions.
You might like to read that, if you haven't done so already....several times!
I teach politics as well as history. The Blair/Brown government comes into that a lot.
It was pretty much just a turf war, wasn't it? Disgraceful really.
The smart money is that sterling is undervalued a little at present and might rise a fair bit in the medium term. If no deal happens the road might be a bit bumpy however it's the US$ that is likely to suffer the most during this period. It has already given up quite a bit to the Yen and other currencies will also gain against the greenback soon
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
I have read it. Several times.
I also noted where it missed out crucial failures by the government to place the blame solely on bankers and the Americans.
As for the rest, if an arsonist puts loads of combustibles in my house, and then puts the fire out when a carelessly discarded fag end ignited them, funny thing is that I wouldn't be grateful. I'd ask why the stupid bastard took such an unnecessary risk in the first place.
And that's roughly how I feel about Brown and the banking crisis.
Several times? I'm impressed!
Nate Silver's book The Signal and the Noise is essentially a book about gambling but it covers the crisis very well and is blistering in its condemnation of the US and its banking institutions.
You might like to read that, if you haven't done so already....several times!
I teach politics as well as history. The Blair/Brown government comes into that a lot.
It was pretty much just a turf war, wasn't it? Disgraceful really.
Certainly it was unedifying.
That's why I still wonder about Brown's exact motivations for keeping Britain out of the Euro.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
GB did ok for the UK in the financial crisis but Paulson really sorted it out (at the 2nd attempt).
His record as chancellor is a bit iffy. Lots of money into the NHS to give pay-rises (not saying the doctors and nurses did not deserve it) but left most of the capital investment to PFI which was a disaster and a financial millstone round the neck of the NHS.
To much tinkering with the system, making it more complicated, increasing red tape were features of Brown.
The 10p income tax rate and the 0% corporation tax allowance were both lamentable errors that first year economics students would have no trouble identifying the negative unintended consequences that followed.
Yup, I buy that. Iffy is fairynuff. He had the confidence of the City though. No small achievement for a Labour Chancellor.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
GB did ok for the UK in the financial crisis but Paulson really sorted it out (at the 2nd attempt).
His record as chancellor is a bit iffy. Lots of money into the NHS to give pay-rises (not saying the doctors and nurses did not deserve it) but left most of the capital investment to PFI which was a disaster and a financial millstone round the neck of the NHS.
To much tinkering with the system, making it more complicated, increasing red tape were features of Brown.
The 10p income tax rate and the 0% corporation tax allowance were both lamentable errors that first year economics students would have no trouble identifying the negative unintended consequences that followed.
Yup, I buy that. Iffy is fairynuff. He had the confidence of the City though. No small achievement for a Labour Chancellor.
Is this the same City that had faith in credit default swaps?
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
I have read it. Several times.
I also noted where it missed out crucial failures by the government to place the blame solely on bankers and the Americans.
As for the rest, if an arsonist puts loads of combustibles in my house, and then puts the fire out when a carelessly discarded fag end ignited them, funny thing is that I wouldn't be grateful. I'd ask why the stupid bastard took such an unnecessary risk in the first place.
And that's roughly how I feel about Brown and the banking crisis.
Several times? I'm impressed!
Nate Silver's book The Signal and the Noise is essentially a book about gambling but it covers the crisis very well and is blistering in its condemnation of the US and its banking institutions.
You might like to read that, if you haven't done so already....several times!
I teach politics as well as history. The Blair/Brown government comes into that a lot.
It was pretty much just a turf war, wasn't it? Disgraceful really.
Certainly it was unedifying.
That's why I still wonder about Brown's exact motivations for keeping Britain out of the Euro.
Well, he was probably right, certainly at the time, if only by accident.
His policies caused us to be badly placed when it hit us and he had no excuse for that. Having been a pretty prudent Chancellor, he became a very political PM and basically overspent at just the wrong time. Our problems added to the general conflagration, I'm sure, but it would be nonsense to suggest he and the UK were a major factor in causing it.
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
I'm not disputing the underlying causes. I'm thinking about the major regulatory failures which left every bank in the UK apart from Lloyds, the Nationwide and HSBC shockingly undercapitalised at a crucial moment.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
Wouldn't argue about that. Once the crisis broke though, he took the lead whilst most G20 Leaders were stricken with uncertainty.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
GB did ok for the UK in the financial crisis but Paulson really sorted it out (at the 2nd attempt).
His record as chancellor is a bit iffy. Lots of money into the NHS to give pay-rises (not saying the doctors and nurses did not deserve it) but left most of the capital investment to PFI which was a disaster and a financial millstone round the neck of the NHS.
To much tinkering with the system, making it more complicated, increasing red tape were features of Brown.
The 10p income tax rate and the 0% corporation tax allowance were both lamentable errors that first year economics students would have no trouble identifying the negative unintended consequences that followed.
Yup, I buy that. Iffy is fairynuff. He had the confidence of the City though. No small achievement for a Labour Chancellor.
Is this the same City that had faith in credit default swaps?
Lol! Yeah, that one. Believe me, Y, my cynicism predates yours by several decades.
The smart money is that sterling is undervalued a little at present and might rise a fair bit in the medium term. If no deal happens the road might be a bit bumpy however it's the US$ that is likely to suffer the most during this period. It has already given up quite a bit to the Yen and other currencies will also gain against the greenback soon
Medium to long term yes I agree. Not for a couple of years though I imagine.
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
That was Cameron's problem - he should have offered his deal or Full EU integration and won at a canter...
We would then be suitably positioned in the EU while allowing the rest of the EU to work on complete integration...
The problem with that, even insignificant as it was, is it would never have lasted. Britain being outside the system even by the tiniest amount would have prevented the EU from continuing in an integrationist manner. They knew perfectly well that in a decade or so, when we were even more entwined, they would be able to present us with an ultimatum and leaving would have been even more difficult.
You are inventing history there. We would have been removed from the rest of the EU with our defined interests (i.e. the areas we had a say in) and would have enabled the rest of europe to actually integrate.
The best description would be a the Norway model but with a continued say in the areas we care about (regulations, trade deals)..
Instead we will leave, end up with annoyed neighbours and need to sign up for the equivalent of the backstop before negotiating a trade deal from a position of weakness.
Not at all. It is you who are re-writing history, or perhaps just not understanding it. The idea that we would have been removed from the EU in any way is farcical. We would still have been subject to QMV in all significant areas and integration would have continued with us eventually being forced to accept full integration. Just look at what happened when Cameron thought he could block the EU using their institutions as part of the Greek bailout. They basically ignored him and made him look a complete fool. They proved how useless his veto really was.
You're conflating being able to block the rest of the EU from doing something with being forced to take part in it.
And that conflation is exactly what would have happened in real life.
Having driven the best part of 2,000 miles in France over the last week I can confirm that the French are arguably the worst drivers in Europe. They are lunatics.
Lunatic drivers? Try India
I used to believe that if you could drive in London you could drive anywhere in the world, until I went to India.
I have this theory that the reason French drivers are so bad is because their roads are so good.
Travelling by train through London this evening. Massive power cut. Clapham Junction in darkness. Extraordinary scenes. First taste of post-Brexit Britain?
Travelling by train through London this evening. Massive power cut. Clapham Junction in darkness. Extraordinary scenes. First taste of post-Brexit Britain?
In the real thing we will be able to see by the light of the burning sheep and cows.
Looks like a long tough season for the Canaries...
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
Serious question: Wasn't the most critical failure to compromise when 'moderate' Eurosceptics rejected Cameron's deal, preferring instead the nuclear option of invoking Article 50?
That was Cameron's problem - he should have offered his deal or Full EU integration and won at a canter...
We would then be suitably positioned in the EU while allowing the rest of the EU to work on complete integration...
The problem with that, even insignificant as it was, is it would never have lasted. Britain being outside the system even by the tiniest amount would have prevented the EU from continuing in an integrationist manner. They knew perfectly well that in a decade or so, when we were even more entwined, they would be able to present us with an ultimatum and leaving would have been even more difficult.
You are inventing history there. We would have been removed from the rest of the EU with our defined interests (i.e. the areas we had a say in) and would have enabled the rest of europe to actually integrate.
The best description would be a the Norway model but with a continued say in the areas we care about (regulations, trade deals)..
Instead we will leave, end up with annoyed neighbours and need to sign up for the equivalent of the backstop before negotiating a trade deal from a position of weakness.
Not at all. It is you who are re-writing history, or perhaps just not understanding it. The idea that we would have been removed from the EU in any way is farcical. We would still have been subject to QMV in all significant areas and integration would have continued with us eventually being forced to accept full integration. Just look at what happened when Cameron thought he could block the EU using their institutions as part of the Greek bailout. They basically ignored him and made him look a complete fool. They proved how useless his veto really was.
You're conflating being able to block the rest of the EU from doing something with being forced to take part in it.
And that conflation is exactly what would have happened in real life.
You mean the Eurozone would have integrated without us, and Eurosceptics would have continued to say we would inevitably be drawn into it?
Travelling by train through London this evening. Massive power cut. Clapham Junction in darkness. Extraordinary scenes. First taste of post-Brexit Britain?
In the real thing we will be able to see by the light of the burning sheep and cows. ...
Travelling by train through London this evening. Massive power cut. Clapham Junction in darkness. Extraordinary scenes. First taste of post-Brexit Britain?
Seems to have affected some areas not others, No problems in downtown East London. Mrs Stodge was in Cambridge - couldn't go back to Kings X but trains to Liverpool Street fine.
Travelling by train through London this evening. Massive power cut. Clapham Junction in darkness. Extraordinary scenes. First taste of post-Brexit Britain?
No. Because we haven't left yet.
First taste of what happens to a country that buries its head in the sand and fails to significantly modernise and upgrade its electricity grid over 25 years as the power plants age and close? Oh yeah.
Travelling by train through London this evening. Massive power cut. Clapham Junction in darkness. Extraordinary scenes. First taste of post-Brexit Britain?
No. But it is an interesting indication of how fragile our systems are and how vulnerable they are to unexpected events.
The one I know I bore everyone silly with is a Carrington event. If we get a big solar flare heading our way then our power supply chain has two choices. The sensible one is to isolate all our power generation systems from the grid so they don't get a massive power surge that burns out the generators. The other is to not isolate them and so we lose much of our generation equipment.
Trouble is, as we have seen today, isolating all our generating equipment will of course cause countrywide power cuts and absolute chaos. Our whole society is far too reliant upon centrally generated electricity. This will only get worse as we move away from domestic gas.
No. But it is an interesting indication of how fragile our systems are and how vulnerable they are to unexpected events.
The one I know I bore everyone silly with is a Carrington event. If we get a big solar flare heading our way then our power supply chain has two choices. The sensible one is to isolate all our power generation systems from the grid so they don't get a massive power surge that burns out the generators. The other is to not isolate them and so we lose much of our generation equipment.
Trouble is, as we have seen today, isolating all our generating equipment will of course cause countrywide power cuts and absolute chaos. Our whole society is far too reliant upon centrally generated electricity. This will only get worse as we move away from domestic gas.
From what I can gather, the power failure lasted 12-15 minutes but it knocked out all the signalling on the LNER lines from Kings X and for a huge area north. That is what has paralysed the transport network and I suspect the same may be true on other rail lines.
I agree it illustrates the vulnerability of aspects of our infrastructure so why is there no money for that but there is money for tax cuts?
Travelling by train through London this evening. Massive power cut. Clapham Junction in darkness. Extraordinary scenes. First taste of post-Brexit Britain?
No. But it is an interesting indication of how fragile our systems are and how vulnerable they are to unexpected events.
The one I know I bore everyone silly with is a Carrington event. If we get a big solar flare heading our way then our power supply chain has two choices. The sensible one is to isolate all our power generation systems from the grid so they don't get a massive power surge that burns out the generators. The other is to not isolate them and so we lose much of our generation equipment.
Trouble is, as we have seen today, isolating all our generating equipment will of course cause countrywide power cuts and absolute chaos. Our whole society is far too reliant upon centrally generated electricity. This will only get worse as we move away from domestic gas.
Our nearest stellar neighbour recently had a flare that would make the Carrington Event look like a child’s sparkler.
No. But it is an interesting indication of how fragile our systems are and how vulnerable they are to unexpected events.
The one I know I bore everyone silly with is a Carrington event. If we get a big solar flare heading our way then our power supply chain has two choices. The sensible one is to isolate all our power generation systems from the grid so they don't get a massive power surge that burns out the generators. The other is to not isolate them and so we lose much of our generation equipment.
Trouble is, as we have seen today, isolating all our generating equipment will of course cause countrywide power cuts and absolute chaos. Our whole society is far too reliant upon centrally generated electricity. This will only get worse as we move away from domestic gas.
From what I can gather, the power failure lasted 12-15 minutes but it knocked out all the signalling on the LNER lines from Kings X and for a huge area north. That is what has paralysed the transport network and I suspect the same may be true on other rail lines.
I agree it illustrates the vulnerability of aspects of our infrastructure so why is there no money for that but there is money for tax cuts?
I assume because it is one of those areas that no one takes seriously. And of course there is no visible return either in an immediate improvement in a service (from the investment) nor in a cut in money spent (from spending the money on tax cuts instead) .
I suppose spending large sums of money for events that are incredibly rare is not considered a good investment.
You mean the Eurozone would have integrated without us, and Eurosceptics would have continued to say we would inevitably be drawn into it?
It wasn't and isn't just the Eurozone. It is the whole system of governance in the EU. As you well know because it is your dream.
That terrible Eurozone that fucked us up for all those years..the Thatcher boom, the Major and Blair boom. Now we are on the verge of reaching our dreams...
England and Scotland as modern European nations, using the Euro, proud neighbors and close friends, as part of the EU isn’t such a bad vision really.
+1
If the EU was the political framework that tied the nations of Great Britain together, we would have an entirely different perspective on European integration.
Travelling by train through London this evening. Massive power cut. Clapham Junction in darkness. Extraordinary scenes. First taste of post-Brexit Britain?
In the real thing we will be able to see by the light of the burning sheep and cows.
Looks like a long tough season for the Canaries...
I'm only a Canary for another month...then back to Oxford.....
Comments
I rather fancied England for this but the odds were too short so I held back. I'm glad I did. The squad includes two bowlers of questionable fitness, and a wicketkeeper/batsmen who is out of form in both respects.
I've backed the Aussies at 2.4 but to modest stakes because the weather is uncertain and the draw may yet come into play.
In one year's time we will have been out the EU for 10 months (give or take).
At which point, there will have been an economic impact of some magnitude, and in some direction. No one, whatever they might say, knows.
There will also be winners and losers. Even if it's an enormous success, some people will be losers. And even if it's a lamentable failure, there will be people who've done well.
And there are external factors too. If the world lurches into a recession, then people in the UK will blame Brexit. (Just as people in the UK blame diminished economic growth in the post 2000 period on the EU, even though all developed countries have seen similar slowdowns.)
My concern throughout this whole process is that the lack of compromise shown by the most vocal Leavers and Remainers means that the country will continue to be extremely split. That does not bode well for civic society or governance.
I suspect the great unknown is during a VONC what can be enacted. Could you VONC insist on an extension / Revoke and watch Boris go cap in hand to do one or the other in preference to campaigning from a cell in the Tower of London...
The smart move would be to drop Bairstow for Curran. But it won't happen.
Brexiteer Chorus (within microseconds of seeing the question): "YES!!"
But really? If Corbyn won a majority on 32% and wanted to revoke, would he have a mandate to do it?
On the other matters you mention he is perfectly sound and is the kind of traditional Labour man who might become a rallying point should the Party ever recover from its current state.
In fact if they picked him they could drop either Bairstow or Buttler, who is also out of form.
Governments do badly in mid term because only they are doing stuff, and changing things usually aggravates people more than it wins friends, particular as most governments have to do a mix of potentially popular and unpopular things, and there is hardly any voter gratitude in politics.
This all changes come election time, because suddenly there are two potential governments, and people measure them up one against each other. Yes, the one in power still tends to lose votes, because of those still dissatisfied folk, but there are lot more who were willing to protest in mid term who come back because they dislike the alternative.
For an unpopular policy moving toward implementation simply makes things worse. And for those that like it, there isn’t as I said any gratitude in politics.
Pro-Union (UK)/pro-Union (EU) people are going to vote Lib Dem.
Tories are going to vote Tory.
Pro-self-government-inclined people are going to vote SNP.
Batshit crazy English nationalists are going to vote Brexit Party.
Vote-Labour-even-if-the-candidate-is-a-donkey people are going to largely sit on the sofa and try to pretend that this ain’t happening.
This spells disaster for SLab and SCons, and big smiles for Nicola and Jo.
We would then be suitably positioned in the EU while allowing the rest of the EU to work on complete integration...
You don't read properly, you can't understand what you do read, and you jump to all kinds of wild conclusions and put all kinds of ridiculous things into people's mouths.
In words of one syllable (or as close as I can get): If a British purchaser buys something from a foreign vendor then the loss of value of sterling you are predicting will imply, OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, that the purchaser will have to pay the vendor 33% more in sterling.
I am making no assumptions about margins, staff costs, or anything else. All that stuff is in your mind.
The question is what happens to that additional cost. Is it passed on to the consumer, or is it absorbed by the business or businesses in the supply chain?
That's a simple question for you. You've said the effect on prices to the consumer will be marginal. You need to explain how that's possible.
If a business has huge margins, then it may be able to absorb the extra costs. But if we're talking about supermarkets, where the margin is apparently only 1-2%, how does this work? You need to explain it, and stop blathering about all the irrelevant stuff you're imagining.
As for decent form recent first class innings read 7, 8, 7, 60, 0, 40, 12, 30, 62, 2, 57. That's not 'decent form.' This season he averages 30 with a high score of 69.
The critical failures occurred over the decades preceding 2016 when successive Governments tied us closer and closer to the EU without allowing any say on the matter by the public. The godparents of Brexit were Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.
It seems to have rebounded in his favour now though. Not much appetite evident these days amongst the remaining EU Members to follow our example.
But of course under our system if Corbyn or anyone else had a majority on 32% of the vote they can legally do what they want within the boundaries of our system. And that includes revoking.
Besides, I still cling to that old and abused concept that we vote for an MP not a party or party leader. So if there is a majority in Parliament to do something then they can do it. That applies right now as well.
I really don't know.
Major -- Maastricht
Blair -- Lisbon
Brown -- kept us out of the Euro
One of these things is not like the others.
I do hope someone is keeping a note of all these constitutional precedents for future reference.
Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?
In its early days, EUrophiles used to debate whether it was better to deepen or broaden the Union. In the end, it tried to do both, and nearly disintegrated as a result.
One of the (true) virtues of Brexit is that it has made the whole EU debate throughout Europe more vibrant and realistic. There is less talk of Federalism these days. Personally I regard that as a good thing.
In a typical Brown cock-up, he signed it late and out of camera shot, thereby pissing off other European leaders while not placating furious Eurosceptics.
It's true he kept us out of the Euro, which arguably is his great contribution to national life. I wonder though whether he did it because he knew it was the wrong choice, or because he wanted to annoy Blair?
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1159820326341173248
And this is one of the best threads on the EU's approach that I have read
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1159764199234527232
His friend replied, 'Try target practice.'
I think he was genuinely against the Euro too, but I'm not sure if it was on economic or political grounds.
The best description would be a the Norway model but with a continued say in the areas we care about (regulations, trade deals)..
Instead we will leave, end up with annoyed neighbours and need to sign up for the equivalent of the backstop before negotiating a trade deal from a position of weakness.
Channel 4 now! He is screwed and not in a nice way
If they do withdraw, I suspect very few of their votes will go to the tories as most of the tory defectors to TBP would have returned already. Most will probably not vote or perhaps vote for UKIP
It really did begin in the USA, and I think how and why is pretty well understood now.
What the govt most fears is parliament taking control of the order paper. But if they do this they must use it to pass legislation.
And that dates from the earliest days of his time as Chancellor.
I have this theory that the reason French drivers are so bad is because their roads are so good.
It's a well documented subject. Try Rawnesley's 'End of The Party'. It's a big but very readable tome. If you are just interested in this topic, the index will lead you to the relevant thirty or so pages.
We might be better off going for a full on membership, but Joe Public would never sign up to that.
Personally, although I am fairly agnostic on Brexit overall (I believe in the long term we are economically marginally better off staying in, but have a mild dislike of the EU institutions and the historic behaviour), I think we should just leave now.
But if we do stay, our interests would be better served perhaps by playing a fuller role and integrating, even if it were to mean the Euro etc.
I also noted where it missed out crucial failures by the government to place the blame solely on bankers and the Americans.
As for the rest, if an arsonist puts loads of combustibles in my house, and then puts the fire out when a carelessly discarded fag end ignited them, funny thing is that I wouldn't be grateful. I'd ask why the stupid bastard took such an unnecessary risk in the first place.
And that's roughly how I feel about Brown and the banking crisis.
Nate Silver's book The Signal and the Noise is essentially a book about gambling but it covers the crisis very well and is blistering in its condemnation of the US and its banking institutions.
You might like to read that, if you haven't done so already....several times!
The purchaser pays the vendor 33%. This increases the COGS of the purchaser by 33%. Now the purchaser, an importer maybe, will need to pass on a price increase to the next company in the supply chain and every company in the chain will pass on an increase ending in an increase to the consumer. However unless inflation truly lifts off the end consumer will not end up paying 33% more.
If the chain is say Vendor [Foreign] > Importer [Domestic] > Distributor > Retailer > Consumer then the COGS increase will need to be passed along the chain. But the chain can swallow some of the percentage as it gets passed along.
Now if its a finished product that is imported it becomes harder to swallow the percentage as there's smaller margins each step of the way, but if the product gets worked on in this country it will swallow the percentage even more.
Finally the end consumer will buy a basket of goods. Some will have a price hike - and some prices hiked more than others - but other elements of the basket will not be hiked at all.
However, thank you for at least pointing out the possibility. It never occurred to me that there could be an overshoot, and of course I should have though of it myself. Still forewarned, forearmed, etc. So thank you for that.
[1] you may recall earlier in the year I wrote an article about my attempt to insure against no-deal by betting failed when we postponed, and currency conversion may be a better method. This is that.
His record as chancellor is a bit iffy. Lots of money into the NHS to give pay-rises (not saying the doctors and nurses did not deserve it) but left most of the capital investment to PFI which was a disaster and a financial millstone round the neck of the NHS.
To much tinkering with the system, making it more complicated, increasing red tape were features of Brown.
The 10p income tax rate and the 0% corporation tax allowance were both lamentable errors that first year economics students would have no trouble identifying the negative unintended consequences that followed.
That's why I still wonder about Brown's exact motivations for keeping Britain out of the Euro.
Looks like a long tough season for the Canaries...
First taste of what happens to a country that buries its head in the sand and fails to significantly modernise and upgrade its electricity grid over 25 years as the power plants age and close? Oh yeah.
The one I know I bore everyone silly with is a Carrington event. If we get a big solar flare heading our way then our power supply chain has two choices. The sensible one is to isolate all our power generation systems from the grid so they don't get a massive power surge that burns out the generators. The other is to not isolate them and so we lose much of our generation equipment.
Trouble is, as we have seen today, isolating all our generating equipment will of course cause countrywide power cuts and absolute chaos. Our whole society is far too reliant upon centrally generated electricity. This will only get worse as we move away from domestic gas.
I agree it illustrates the vulnerability of aspects of our infrastructure so why is there no money for that but there is money for tax cuts?
I suppose spending large sums of money for events that are incredibly rare is not considered a good investment.
If the EU was the political framework that tied the nations of Great Britain together, we would have an entirely different perspective on European integration.
I'm only a Canary for another month...then back to Oxford.....
Steep learning cove for the yellows...but