Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Is EdSec Gavin going to be a victim in the re-shuffle? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 13 in General
imageIs EdSec Gavin going to be a victim in the re-shuffle? – politicalbetting.com

All the signs are that BoJo, who reputedly hates firing people, is getting ready for a reshuffle that could happen this week. The fact that the Tories have lost their lead in two of the latest polls is adding to the speculation that we might see something happening this week.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 14,199
    The reality is that were Boris to get rid of all the "incompetent" ministers he needs to replace a lot of ministers.

    And I don't know if quality replacements exist...
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199
    And second - as I'm already first (and on topic)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,580
    On the "Broadest shoulders tax"

    Should this include shoulder pads?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355
    If BoZo sacks all of the (most egregiously) incompetent ministers, who is he going to blame when Christmas is cancelled?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Mr. xP, no-one. In a scenario where he's fired the incompetent he will have resigned.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 67,572
    eek said:

    The reality is that were Boris to get rid of all the "incompetent" ministers he needs to replace a lot of ministers.

    And I don't know if quality replacements exist...

    Hunt, Truss to cabinet, PBs own Aaron Bell to start the ladder climbing with so.e bag carrier role.
  • Williamson far too useful in the Cabinet. He won't get the sack.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199

    Mr. xP, no-one. In a scenario where he's fired the incompetent he will have resigned.

    Surely if Boris has a ranked order of incompetentancy the issue is that (on some criteria) he will be fairly high up the rankings.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,386
    Typical of the educational outcomes that he has over seen - we have a 100.3% probability... Disgraceful.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,221
    Will mention this again but heard on Friday night that the reshuffle is today. Let’s see!
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199
    MrEd said:

    Will mention this again but heard on Friday night that the reshuffle is today. Let’s see!

    The chief whip was in Number 10 last night so it's possible - after that appeared on twitter I half expected it to kick off last night.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    I expect any reshuffle to be very limited.

    Maybe just Williamson booted, and replaced by
    Dowden. Something like that.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199

    Typical of the educational outcomes that he has over seen - we have a 100.3% probability... Disgraceful.

    It's a betting market, which will have a profit margin / over-round within it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Mr. Walker, knotty. The exchange rate is the same it was 5 years ago. Preceding this, the pound was stronger but that was part of a spike (in December 2008 it was down to 1.04 during the financial crisis trough). There's been a general declining trend from highs of around 1.67 in 2000.

    It probably did cause some depreciation but not a staggering amount. Supply chain problems and COVID directly (linked, of course) have been more dramatic.
  • New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    Who to Trade?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    edited September 13

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983
    Deaths in England 2/1 - 2/7

    COVID: 51,281
    Double jabbed: 640 - some infected before vaccination
    Double jabbed + 2 weeks: 256

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand2july2021
  • MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    Who to Trade?
    Keep Truss doing it and bring it within the FCDO.
  • New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
  • I wonder how many of the 256 were oldies dying with but not from covid or finished off by covid a few weeks earlier than they would have been without it.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    Who to Trade?
    Williamson....
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,632
    I hope not. The gift that keeps on giving. Together with Johnson and Patel (who would have stopped the Raducanus arriving if they'd been around at the time) and Raab who sunbathed while Kabul fell and Coffey who hated gays when the zeitgeist changed ....it's like SKS has been given a wild card into Downing st

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    edited September 13

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,386
    Almost as if vaccination to try to prevent serious illness and death... works.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    Who to Trade?
    Williamson....
    Hmmm.

    And how well would he deliver enhanced trade deals, and a Secretariat to keep EuCo in check long-term?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983

    I wonder how many of the 256 were oldies dying with but not from covid or finished off by covid a few weeks earlier than they would have been without it.
    the median age of breakthrough deaths was 84, compared to 82 for other COVID-19 deaths and for non-COVID-19 deaths.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    The problem for Boris is that is he is looking for people who are actively denting Tory support…the list starts with one B Johnson.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    Roger said:

    I hope not. The gift that keeps on giving. Together with Johnson and Patel (who would have stopped the Raducanus arriving if they'd been around at the time) and Raab who sunbathed while Kabul fell and Coffey who hated gays when the zeitgeist changed ....it's like SKS has been given a wild card into Downing st

    Only with the SNP, the Tories would still win most seats in the latest poll
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    Who to Trade?
    Gove?
  • New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    So the average household spends £30k on consumer items per year ?

    It also boosted wealth creators and led to a drop in the trade deficit.

    So I suppose it depends on who you have sympathy with - wealth creators or wealth consumers.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983
    The epicentre of Britain's pandemic house price boom is just up the road from Darlington. (and I suspect where many of the senior Treasury people who move there will choose to live).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58502618
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757

    HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    Truss to FO looks a very strong bet, and I agree that sacking Patel would create a vulnerability.

    O/T: I yield to nobody in my interest in politics combined with lack of interest in tennis, but am I the only one to be irritated by the way everyone from left to right is trying to make Raducanu their poster child? If she wants to be active in politics, fine, otherwise let her enjoy herself with whatever she wants. (My suggestion that she might fancy being a Bromley councillor was a joke...)
    Nick precisely no one IRL is associating Emma Raducanu and politics.
  • New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    I both disagree that it is true and think if it is true then it is a good thing.

    We have had no inflation for the past few years, CPI has been too low since the referendum, if you're saying it would have been 2.9% lower then that would mean we'd have had major deflation were it not for the Brexit vote.

    I see no evidence that we would have had deflation, but if we would have then thank goodness that was avoided. Deflation is a bad thing, not a good thing.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    So the average household spends £30k on consumer items per year ?

    It also boosted wealth creators and led to a drop in the trade deficit.

    So I suppose it depends on who you have sympathy with - wealth creators or wealth consumers.
    Brexit “boosted wealth creators”.

    LOL.

    You’ve never met a wealth creator before, have you?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,327

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    Not due to Brexit but due to voting for Brexit in the referendum they claim. Their data ended in mid-2018.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199

    The epicentre of Britain's pandemic house price boom is just up the road from Darlington. (and I suspect where many of the senior Treasury people who move there will choose to live).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58502618

    Well the locals in Richmondshire have been priced out for decades as is highlighted further down - beyond that I won't comment beyond the fact there have been appeals to prove that working from home meets the local occupancy regulations (much to the annoyance of the national parks).
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,103

    I wonder how many of the 256 were oldies dying with but not from covid or finished off by covid a few weeks earlier than they would have been without it.
    Roughly 1 in 5,000 people die every week.

    We're currently getting about 250,000 positives a week.

    If we were to simply pick 250,000 people at random from the population - let's say back in 2019 before covid was with us - 200 of those would die within the next four weeks.

    A major caveat to the above is that positives aren't distributed at random throughout the population. Positives are very strongly clustered around those who will not 'die anyway' - i.e. the relatively young. Finger in the air estimate is that the true figure of 'die anyways' is about 20-40 rather than 200. But still.

    Maths all off the top of my head - feel free to tell me where I went wrong!

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983
    "Broadest shoulders"

    Richer households saw a bigger reduction in spending than poorer households



    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1437337483809894402?s=20

    I suppose richer households have more discretionary spending (restaurants/entertainment) than poorer.....
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199
    edited September 13

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    And the reality is that between June 21st and July 1st the Sterline / Euro rate dropped from €1.30 to €1.20 which was an 8% drop with similar impacts on cable (£/$). So if the impact is only 2.9% then the impact was minimal and far less than you would expect from an 8% change in currency values.
  • BBC News - Alibaba slides on report China plans to break up payment app
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58540935

    Don't critcise the party.....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 13
    tlg86 said:
    "Insulate Britain - an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion"

    Are these the famed army of loft laggers that politicians always talk about?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632

    "Broadest shoulders"

    Richer households saw a bigger reduction in spending than poorer households



    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1437337483809894402?s=20

    I suppose richer households have more discretionary spending (restaurants/entertainment) than poorer.....

    Train tickets and foreign holidays?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983
    Total spending by Household quintile Pre/Post Pandemic:

    1 - £328.00 / £287.00
    2 - £432.90 / £365.80
    3 - £551.63 / £450.13
    4 - £688.89 / £546.29
    5 - £937.38 / £744.28
    All-£586.56 / £477.46
  • Cookie said:

    I wonder how many of the 256 were oldies dying with but not from covid or finished off by covid a few weeks earlier than they would have been without it.
    Roughly 1 in 5,000 people die every week.

    We're currently getting about 250,000 positives a week.

    If we were to simply pick 250,000 people at random from the population - let's say back in 2019 before covid was with us - 200 of those would die within the next four weeks.

    A major caveat to the above is that positives aren't distributed at random throughout the population. Positives are very strongly clustered around those who will not 'die anyway' - i.e. the relatively young. Finger in the air estimate is that the true figure of 'die anyways' is about 20-40 rather than 200. But still.

    Maths all off the top of my head - feel free to tell me where I went wrong!

    But isn't the most likely place to catch covid a hospital ?

    So a sick oldie might have a good chance of being infected.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    The key premise - that the Brexit vote triggered a sterling depreciation - is uncontroversial.

    That depreciation might lead to an increase in consumer prices also seems - on the face of it - straightforward, but requires much more substantiation, which is what the paper attempts to do.

    It’s quite funny watching the Brexiters insist that no, the Emperor is dressed in the finest silk.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,487
    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    Surely this is noise in consumer price data and the real action is the inflation we’ve seen at the lower end of pay scales. Which was the primary goal of a swathe of the Leave vote.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199

    Total spending by Household quintile Pre/Post Pandemic:

    1 - £328.00 / £287.00
    2 - £432.90 / £365.80
    3 - £551.63 / £450.13
    4 - £688.89 / £546.29
    5 - £937.38 / £744.28
    All-£586.56 / £477.46

    Hardly surprising Richer households probably went out more and weren't able to do so.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,306
    edited September 13

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    So the average household spends £30k on consumer items per year ?

    It also boosted wealth creators and led to a drop in the trade deficit.

    So I suppose it depends on who you have sympathy with - wealth creators or wealth consumers.
    Brexit “boosted wealth creators”.

    LOL.

    You’ve never met a wealth creator before, have you?
    I work in manufacturing.

    So yes I have.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,323
    edited September 13
    Yep, and 100% of those who died hadn't had ivermectin either.

    All that stat shows is that the vast majoruty of deaths in H1 happened before people had the chance to be double vaccinated (i.e. in Jan & Feb). Vaccines work, but anyone using that as evidence is being either obtuse or disengenuous.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,471

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    Who to Trade?
    Keep Truss doing it and bring it within the FCDO.
    Has she worked out to use a phone yet?


  • eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    The key premise - that the Brexit vote triggered a sterling depreciation - is uncontroversial.

    That depreciation might lead to an increase in consumer prices also seems - on the face of it - straightforward, but requires much more substantiation, which is what the paper attempts to do.

    It’s quite funny watching the Brexiters insist that no, the Emperor is dressed in the finest silk.
    Except for the simple fact that we know there has not been any CPI inflation in recent years.

    So no, alleged CPI is the Emperor with no clothes - this paper is trying to say "look at all that expensive silk" but we can already see that there is nothing there.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,386

    Cookie said:

    I wonder how many of the 256 were oldies dying with but not from covid or finished off by covid a few weeks earlier than they would have been without it.
    Roughly 1 in 5,000 people die every week.

    We're currently getting about 250,000 positives a week.

    If we were to simply pick 250,000 people at random from the population - let's say back in 2019 before covid was with us - 200 of those would die within the next four weeks.

    A major caveat to the above is that positives aren't distributed at random throughout the population. Positives are very strongly clustered around those who will not 'die anyway' - i.e. the relatively young. Finger in the air estimate is that the true figure of 'die anyways' is about 20-40 rather than 200. But still.

    Maths all off the top of my head - feel free to tell me where I went wrong!

    But isn't the most likely place to catch covid a hospital ?

    So a sick oldie might have a good chance of being infected.
    One of the issues we have is that for some, no-one should die of Covid. I don't know any other disease or condition that this is the case for. I think too many people believe that if we just try really hard we can suppress Covid for good, They are wrong, and have been wrong since Jan 2020. It is now endemic.

    I am heartened by the England cases trending down in recent days. I don't think many expected this in the week after the schools went back, especially after what was seen in Scotland. Perhaps Scotland conflated opening up more with the school return?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632
    @another_richard

    These were the lowest COVID death numbers recorded this year:

    21-May-21: 107
    28-May-21: 95
    04-Jun-21: 98
    11-Jun-21: 84
    18-Jun-21: 102
    25-Jun-21: 99
    02-Jul-21: 109

    I reckon about 100 a week are dying with COVID.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    So the average household spends £30k on consumer items per year ?

    It also boosted wealth creators and led to a drop in the trade deficit.

    So I suppose it depends on who you have sympathy with - wealth creators or wealth consumers.
    Brexit “boosted wealth creators”.

    LOL.

    You’ve never met a wealth creator before, have you?
    I work in manufacturing.

    So yes I have.
    Of course you do.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Mr. Urquhart, after Tencent (gaming giant) lost $60bn from the Party describing gaming as spiritual opium, they do seem to be entering a new phase of restriction and control.

    Videogames are now limited to one hour on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays only.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199
    edited September 13

    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    The key premise - that the Brexit vote triggered a sterling depreciation - is uncontroversial.

    That depreciation might lead to an increase in consumer prices also seems - on the face of it - straightforward, but requires much more substantiation, which is what the paper attempts to do.

    It’s quite funny watching the Brexiters insist that no, the Emperor is dressed in the finest silk.
    Currency depreciates - prices of imports rise. That's hardly news - and we know that from just watching the currency markets.

    If you then look at the actual figures a better question would be why if Sterling depreciated by 8-10% did prices only increase by 2.9% and not something like the 6% you would expect in that circumstance. Who / what absorbed the rest of the change in import prices.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,386
    maaarsh said:

    Yep, and 100% of those who died hadn't had ivermectin either.

    All that stat shows is that the vast majoruty of deaths in H1 happened before people had the chance to be double vaccinated (i.e. in Jan & Feb). Vaccines work, but anyone using that as evidence is being either obtuse or disengenuous.
    I disagree a bit - most of the most vulnerable have been vaccinated for a considerable while now, and we are currently seeing over 1000 deaths a week, so yes the numbers are a bit skewed by the start date coinciding with the jan surge, but the effect is still there.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    And the reality is that between June 21st and July 1st the Sterline / Euro rate dropped from €1.30 to €1.20 which was an 8% drop with similar impacts on cable (£/$). So if the impact is only 2.9% then the impact was minimal and far less than you would expect from an 8% change in currency values.
    Why the hell would anyone take June 21 to July 1 as the relevant period?

    Laughable.

    Even Beefy Botham would question that methodology.
  • New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    So the average household spends £30k on consumer items per year ?

    It also boosted wealth creators and led to a drop in the trade deficit.

    So I suppose it depends on who you have sympathy with - wealth creators or wealth consumers.
    Brexit “boosted wealth creators”.

    LOL.

    You’ve never met a wealth creator before, have you?
    I work in manufacturing.

    So yes I have.
    Of course you do.
    Be fair. Brexit boosted *some* wealth creators. OK they're a minority but as with most things it isn't a binary choice.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,323

    maaarsh said:

    Yep, and 100% of those who died hadn't had ivermectin either.

    All that stat shows is that the vast majoruty of deaths in H1 happened before people had the chance to be double vaccinated (i.e. in Jan & Feb). Vaccines work, but anyone using that as evidence is being either obtuse or disengenuous.
    I disagree a bit - most of the most vulnerable have been vaccinated for a considerable while now, and we are currently seeing over 1000 deaths a week, so yes the numbers are a bit skewed by the start date coinciding with the jan surge, but the effect is still there.
    I'm not saying vaccines don't work, I'm saying it's a pointless stat.

    You could just as fairly compare the deaths with and without vaccine for the entire pandemic, as people last year had just as much chance of being double jabbed as they did in February this year. But that would be obvious nonsense, and so is this.
  • Mr. Urquhart, after Tencent (gaming giant) lost $60bn from the Party describing gaming as spiritual opium, they do seem to be entering a new phase of restriction and control.

    Videogames are now limited to one hour on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays only.

    The joys of doing business in a "managed capitalist" society....
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    So the average household spends £30k on consumer items per year ?

    It also boosted wealth creators and led to a drop in the trade deficit.

    So I suppose it depends on who you have sympathy with - wealth creators or wealth consumers.
    Brexit “boosted wealth creators”.

    LOL.

    You’ve never met a wealth creator before, have you?
    I work in manufacturing.

    So yes I have.
    Of course you do.
    Be fair. Brexit boosted *some* wealth creators. OK they're a minority but as with most things it isn't a binary choice.
    Which ones specifically?
    Customs officials are not wealth creators.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,487
    tlg86 said:

    @another_richard

    These were the lowest COVID death numbers recorded this year:

    21-May-21: 107
    28-May-21: 95
    04-Jun-21: 98
    11-Jun-21: 84
    18-Jun-21: 102
    25-Jun-21: 99
    02-Jul-21: 109

    I reckon about 100 a week are dying with COVID.

    https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00NDk2LWFlMTAtOTg0OGNhNmFiNGM0IiwidCI6ImVlNGUxNDk5LTRhMzUtNGIyZS1hZDQ3LTVmM2NmOWRlODY2NiIsImMiOjh9

    Excess deaths by week. April-ish to now has been noise one way or the other. The pertinent question is what happens as we move through autumn and into winter. And to answer that we need data on the longevity of vaccine protection and the detail of the government’s booster plan.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,386
    maaarsh said:

    maaarsh said:

    Yep, and 100% of those who died hadn't had ivermectin either.

    All that stat shows is that the vast majoruty of deaths in H1 happened before people had the chance to be double vaccinated (i.e. in Jan & Feb). Vaccines work, but anyone using that as evidence is being either obtuse or disengenuous.
    I disagree a bit - most of the most vulnerable have been vaccinated for a considerable while now, and we are currently seeing over 1000 deaths a week, so yes the numbers are a bit skewed by the start date coinciding with the jan surge, but the effect is still there.
    I'm not saying vaccines don't work, I'm saying it's a pointless stat.

    You could just as fairly compare the deaths with and without vaccine for the entire pandemic, as people last year had just as much chance of being double jabbed as they did in February this year. But that would be obvious nonsense, and so is this.
    Its not nonsense. That's too strong. It is data for after vaccination became available. I agree that a better measure should be after everyone has had the opportunity to be double vaccinated, and in time we will have that data too.

    Currently most people in ICU are not vaccinated (anecdotes from various sources).That should be good enough for most people to get vaccinated.
    But you can't account for idiots.
  • New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    So the average household spends £30k on consumer items per year ?

    It also boosted wealth creators and led to a drop in the trade deficit.

    So I suppose it depends on who you have sympathy with - wealth creators or wealth consumers.
    Brexit “boosted wealth creators”.

    LOL.

    You’ve never met a wealth creator before, have you?
    I work in manufacturing.

    So yes I have.
    Of course you do.
    Why would you doubt that ?

    I've mentioned it many times over the years and its not an uncommon sector to work in for middle aged blokes in Yorkshire.

    Several other PBers work in manufacturing as well.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380

    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    The key premise - that the Brexit vote triggered a sterling depreciation - is uncontroversial.

    That depreciation might lead to an increase in consumer prices also seems - on the face of it - straightforward, but requires much more substantiation, which is what the paper attempts to do.

    It’s quite funny watching the Brexiters insist that no, the Emperor is dressed in the finest silk.
    Except for the simple fact that we know there has not been any CPI inflation in recent years.

    So no, alleged CPI is the Emperor with no clothes - this paper is trying to say "look at all that expensive silk" but we can already see that there is nothing there.
    According to the Bank of England’s online calculator thing, inflation averaged 2.5% per annum from 2015 to 2020.

    I’m not saying it’s been high, but it’s not zero.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199

    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    And the reality is that between June 21st and July 1st the Sterline / Euro rate dropped from €1.30 to €1.20 which was an 8% drop with similar impacts on cable (£/$). So if the impact is only 2.9% then the impact was minimal and far less than you would expect from an 8% change in currency values.
    Why the hell would anyone take June 21 to July 1 as the relevant period?

    Laughable.

    Even Beefy Botham would question that methodology.
    That was all I can pull from the xe.com graph I used to rapidly see what the impact of the Leave vote was on currency exchange rates.

    The actual figures will be way worse as we went from an average of €1.28 prior to the referendum to €1.13 afterwards (using average figures from my travel expenses for 2015 and 2018 ).

    So we have a 2.9% change in prices from a 12% drop in exchange rates.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,487

    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    The key premise - that the Brexit vote triggered a sterling depreciation - is uncontroversial.

    That depreciation might lead to an increase in consumer prices also seems - on the face of it - straightforward, but requires much more substantiation, which is what the paper attempts to do.

    It’s quite funny watching the Brexiters insist that no, the Emperor is dressed in the finest silk.
    Except for the simple fact that we know there has not been any CPI inflation in recent years.

    So no, alleged CPI is the Emperor with no clothes - this paper is trying to say "look at all that expensive silk" but we can already see that there is nothing there.
    According to the Bank of England’s online calculator thing, inflation averaged 2.5% per annum from 2015 to 2020.

    I’m not saying it’s been high, but it’s not zero.
    You are aware why central banks don’t set a CPI target at zero percent I suppose?
  • New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    So the average household spends £30k on consumer items per year ?

    It also boosted wealth creators and led to a drop in the trade deficit.

    So I suppose it depends on who you have sympathy with - wealth creators or wealth consumers.
    Brexit “boosted wealth creators”.

    LOL.

    You’ve never met a wealth creator before, have you?
    I work in manufacturing.

    So yes I have.
    Of course you do.
    Be fair. Brexit boosted *some* wealth creators. OK they're a minority but as with most things it isn't a binary choice.
    Which ones specifically?
    Customs officials are not wealth creators.
    In every economic event there are winners and losers. In my industry there was an extinction-level event for some smaller producers / wholesalers / distributors. Others have flourished as the rapid switch into online has allowed them to branch out and expand.
  • Kerrringgghhhhh....

    BBC News - Raducanu: US Open champion celebrated in China for her heritage
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-58541314
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,323

    maaarsh said:

    maaarsh said:

    Yep, and 100% of those who died hadn't had ivermectin either.

    All that stat shows is that the vast majoruty of deaths in H1 happened before people had the chance to be double vaccinated (i.e. in Jan & Feb). Vaccines work, but anyone using that as evidence is being either obtuse or disengenuous.
    I disagree a bit - most of the most vulnerable have been vaccinated for a considerable while now, and we are currently seeing over 1000 deaths a week, so yes the numbers are a bit skewed by the start date coinciding with the jan surge, but the effect is still there.
    I'm not saying vaccines don't work, I'm saying it's a pointless stat.

    You could just as fairly compare the deaths with and without vaccine for the entire pandemic, as people last year had just as much chance of being double jabbed as they did in February this year. But that would be obvious nonsense, and so is this.
    Its not nonsense. That's too strong. It is data for after vaccination became available. I agree that a better measure should be after everyone has had the opportunity to be double vaccinated, and in time we will have that data too.

    Currently most people in ICU are not vaccinated (anecdotes from various sources).That should be good enough for most people to get vaccinated.
    But you can't account for idiots.
    44k of the 51k deaths happened before there were meaningful levels of people double jabbed. So make the denominator 7k and it starts to be reasonable to quote rather than propoganda where the facts are already strong enough and don't need tarting up.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    And the reality is that between June 21st and July 1st the Sterline / Euro rate dropped from €1.30 to €1.20 which was an 8% drop with similar impacts on cable (£/$). So if the impact is only 2.9% then the impact was minimal and far less than you would expect from an 8% change in currency values.
    Why the hell would anyone take June 21 to July 1 as the relevant period?

    Laughable.

    Even Beefy Botham would question that methodology.
    That was all I can pull from the xe.com graph I used to rapidly see what the impact of the Leave vote was on currency exchange rates.

    The actual figures will be way worse as we went from an average of €1.28 prior to the referendum to €1.13 afterwards (using average figures from my travel expenses for 2015 and 2018 ).

    So we have a 2.9% change in prices from a 12% drop in exchange rates.
    That’s better.

    I don’t think, by the way, that appreciation/depreciation feed automatically into inflation and certainly not 1:1.

    There are a gazillion reasons why they don’t, ie market willingness to accept price changes, substitutability of product etc etc.

    One of the many disappointments of Brexit is that sterling’s fall didn’t seem to deliver much/any uplift in U.K. exports, for example.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    New 2022 French presidential election poll

    1st round

    Macron 23%
    Le Pen 22%
    Bertrand 16%
    Melenchon 11%

    2nd round

    Macron 54%
    Le Pen 46%


    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1437336958502592512?s=20
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    edited September 13
    Mr. Urquhart, not as annoying* as when Chirac tried to claim our World Cup win as a victory for Europe.

    Edited extra bit: *tedious may be a better word.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,199

    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    The key premise - that the Brexit vote triggered a sterling depreciation - is uncontroversial.

    That depreciation might lead to an increase in consumer prices also seems - on the face of it - straightforward, but requires much more substantiation, which is what the paper attempts to do.

    It’s quite funny watching the Brexiters insist that no, the Emperor is dressed in the finest silk.
    Except for the simple fact that we know there has not been any CPI inflation in recent years.

    So no, alleged CPI is the Emperor with no clothes - this paper is trying to say "look at all that expensive silk" but we can already see that there is nothing there.
    According to the Bank of England’s online calculator thing, inflation averaged 2.5% per annum from 2015 to 2020.

    I’m not saying it’s been high, but it’s not zero.
    Congratulations - I think you've just proved that all the report is saying is that the impact of Brexit matched the rate of inflation in 2017.

    I think anyone could have told you that.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    moonshine said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    The key premise - that the Brexit vote triggered a sterling depreciation - is uncontroversial.

    That depreciation might lead to an increase in consumer prices also seems - on the face of it - straightforward, but requires much more substantiation, which is what the paper attempts to do.

    It’s quite funny watching the Brexiters insist that no, the Emperor is dressed in the finest silk.
    Except for the simple fact that we know there has not been any CPI inflation in recent years.

    So no, alleged CPI is the Emperor with no clothes - this paper is trying to say "look at all that expensive silk" but we can already see that there is nothing there.
    According to the Bank of England’s online calculator thing, inflation averaged 2.5% per annum from 2015 to 2020.

    I’m not saying it’s been high, but it’s not zero.
    You are aware why central banks don’t set a CPI target at zero percent I suppose?
    Of course I am.

    I am merely rebutting the previous assertion that we’ve had no inflation.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 95,999
    edited September 13
    tlg86 said:

    "Broadest shoulders"

    Richer households saw a bigger reduction in spending than poorer households



    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1437337483809894402?s=20

    I suppose richer households have more discretionary spending (restaurants/entertainment) than poorer.....

    Train tickets and foreign holidays?
    Using myself as an example of the typical working man.

    Biggest drops in my spending since the first lockdown.

    1) Foreign holidays
    2) Train tickets
    3) UK hotel stays
    4) Events like gigs, sporting events, theatre, and cinema
    5) Work clothes
    6) Fuel
    7) Restaurants

    Slightly offset with more technology purchases.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,153
    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    Who to Trade?
    Keep Truss doing it and bring it within the FCDO.
    Has she worked out to use a phone yet?


    Who is that in the photo in the photo (if you get what I mean - the photo on the table text to Truss) doing a Tory power stance? I can see it's not Javid, this time, but can't work out whether it's Truss.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,195
    edited September 13

    "Broadest shoulders"

    Richer households saw a bigger reduction in spending than poorer households



    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1437337483809894402?s=20

    I suppose richer households have more discretionary spending (restaurants/entertainment) than poorer.....

    Yes, file under statement of the bleeding obvious. Low income households have little scope to reduce their spending, whereas those better off do. As one of the latter, we certainly spent a huge amount less in the year in question. No holidays, very little eating out, much reduced petrol costs, and so on. If anything, I'd have expected the reduction in spending in groups 4 and 5 to be higher.
  • tlg86 said:

    "Broadest shoulders"

    Richer households saw a bigger reduction in spending than poorer households



    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1437337483809894402?s=20

    I suppose richer households have more discretionary spending (restaurants/entertainment) than poorer.....

    Train tickets and foreign holidays?
    Using myself as an example of the typical working man.

    Biggest drops in my spending since the first lockdown.

    1) Foreign holidays
    2) Train tickets
    3) UK hotel stays
    4) Events like gigs, theatre, and cinema
    5) Work clothes
    6) Fuel
    7) Restaurants

    Slightly offset with more technology purchases.
    I've saved a fortune during the Pandemic for basically those reasons, especially the eating out, gigs and travel.
  • Selebian said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    Who to Trade?
    Keep Truss doing it and bring it within the FCDO.
    Has she worked out to use a phone yet?


    Who is that in the photo in the photo (if you get what I mean - the photo on the table text to Truss) doing a Tory power stance? I can see it's not Javid, this time, but can't work out whether it's Truss.
    Liz Truss.

    https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/1127608175149105152
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632

    Kerrringgghhhhh....

    BBC News - Raducanu: US Open champion celebrated in China for her heritage
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-58541314

    For all the talk about her Romanian ancestry, it's her Chinese heritage that could be problematic for her, if you know what I mean.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 8,380
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    🤦‍♂️

    And yet the Governor of the Bank of England has had to write "please explain" letters six times to explain why CPI was too low since the referendum: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inflationary-targets

    Only one letter to explain why inflation was too high and even then it was only because it exceeded bounds by just 0.1% and immediately came back to within bounds.
    Take it up with the academics.

    Who were focused on the relative change, and it’s impact on consumers - not whether the Bank of England breached inflation targets. 🤦‍♂️
    The relative change aiming to suit their agenda it seems as our problem in recent years has been inflation is too low. If they're saying that problem would have been even worse without Brexit then thank goodness we had Brexit eh? 🤦‍♂️
    What they are saying is that Brexit has cost the average household £870 a year*, and I note you do not disagree but simply believe it is not a problem.

    *Attributable to depreciation alone, never mind the other costs.
    It's 63 pages long with another 7 page appendix of assumptions - so you need time to read all of it.

    My first pick up is the assumptions use West Texas crude as the oil price which wouldn't be my go to option for European crude and even then they are missing data for 2018 which they have claimed to extrapolate.


    You are welcome to post a full response in the “Journal of Brexit Studies” aka the Daily Express.

    I believe all submissions are thoroughly peer-reviewed.

    By Laurence Fox and Lord “Beefy” Botham.
    Hang on it's an economic paper on which I've already (and merely) questioned a single assumption.

    But if the basis of that assumption is wrong how many others have similar flaws.

    The key premise - that the Brexit vote triggered a sterling depreciation - is uncontroversial.

    That depreciation might lead to an increase in consumer prices also seems - on the face of it - straightforward, but requires much more substantiation, which is what the paper attempts to do.

    It’s quite funny watching the Brexiters insist that no, the Emperor is dressed in the finest silk.
    Except for the simple fact that we know there has not been any CPI inflation in recent years.

    So no, alleged CPI is the Emperor with no clothes - this paper is trying to say "look at all that expensive silk" but we can already see that there is nothing there.
    According to the Bank of England’s online calculator thing, inflation averaged 2.5% per annum from 2015 to 2020.

    I’m not saying it’s been high, but it’s not zero.
    Congratulations - I think you've just proved that all the report is saying is that the impact of Brexit matched the rate of inflation in 2017.

    I think anyone could have told you that.
    2.9% aggregate contribution to a 2.5% per annum rate.

    So, think again.
  • HYUFD said:

    Let's hope so.

    And Patel.

    Williamson is a loyalist so I doubt it, removing Patel would also make her a focal point for rightwing opposition to the government on the backbenches.

    The only move I expect is Raab to Justice with Truss becoming Foreign Secretary.

    It is possible Gove gets a promotion too though as he is competent whatever other problems he has
    If Williamson, Patel, Raab and Jenrick are not relieved of their duties then Boris deserves all the criticism he is going to receive, and not just from from opponents

    Time you opened your eyes to the politics and public perception
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 795
    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    I hope not. The gift that keeps on giving. Together with Johnson and Patel (who would have stopped the Raducanus arriving if they'd been around at the time) and Raab who sunbathed while Kabul fell and Coffey who hated gays when the zeitgeist changed ....it's like SKS has been given a wild card into Downing st

    Only with the SNP, the Tories would still win most seats in the latest poll
    As is often mentioned, the key with polls is not the headline numbers, but the direction of travel.

    Your whistling in the dark makes you sound like Chemical Ali. The Conservatives have serious problems. Not least the high likelihood of a perfect storm in the economy hitting in around 6-9 months.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,327

    Kerrringgghhhhh....

    BBC News - Raducanu: US Open champion celebrated in China for her heritage
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-58541314

    Yay she has those Chinese mitochondrial genes!

  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,195

    New research just published in the International Economic Review.

    The decline in sterling due to Brexit raised consumer prices 2.9%, costing the average household £870 a year.

    https://twitter.com/thom_sampson/status/1437317032391872514?s=21

    So the average household spends £30k on consumer items per year ?

    It also boosted wealth creators and led to a drop in the trade deficit.

    So I suppose it depends on who you have sympathy with - wealth creators or wealth consumers.
    Brexit “boosted wealth creators”.

    LOL.

    You’ve never met a wealth creator before, have you?
    I work in manufacturing.

    So yes I have.
    Of course you do.
    Why would you doubt that ?

    I've mentioned it many times over the years and its not an uncommon sector to work in for middle aged blokes in Yorkshire.

    Several other PBers work in manufacturing as well.
    That's probably why UK productivity is so low - manufacturers spending too much time on PB. :)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,121

    I wonder how many of the 256 were oldies dying with but not from covid or finished off by covid a few weeks earlier than they would have been without it.
    the median age of breakthrough deaths was 84, compared to 82 for other COVID-19 deaths and for non-COVID-19 deaths.
    Thanks for that. I've often wondered about the appropriateness of the death figures.
  • tlg86 said:

    "Broadest shoulders"

    Richer households saw a bigger reduction in spending than poorer households



    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1437337483809894402?s=20

    I suppose richer households have more discretionary spending (restaurants/entertainment) than poorer.....

    Train tickets and foreign holidays?
    Using myself as an example of the typical working man.

    Biggest drops in my spending since the first lockdown.

    1) Foreign holidays
    2) Train tickets
    3) UK hotel stays
    4) Events like gigs, theatre, and cinema
    5) Work clothes
    6) Fuel
    7) Restaurants

    Slightly offset with more technology purchases.
    I've saved a fortune during the Pandemic for basically those reasons, especially the eating out, gigs and travel.
    Same. No holiday of any description this year (new house/country feels like a holiday anyway), hotels have all been work trips, 1st gigs this year are December, very little personal mileage, haven't eaten in a proper restaurant since last time on holiday February last year.

    Do need to buy a couple of suits for the Germany trip next month. Middle-aged spread, lockdown and depression means that a size up is needed despite best efforts to drop it back off again.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,195
    HYUFD said:

    New 2022 French presidential election poll

    1st round

    Macron 23%
    Le Pen 22%
    Bertrand 16%
    Melenchon 11%

    2nd round

    Macron 54%
    Le Pen 46%


    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1437336958502592512?s=20

    Goodwin will be disappointed by the second round figures.
Sign In or Register to comment.