with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.
Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
If I remember right from memory it worked the other way around when Brown was Chancellor. The first release data was always better, with the forecasts for the future even better but once revisions came it would then be revised down as time went on.
Then Osborne brought in the ONS and the situation reversed.
What on earth is going on with the booster programme? Is this a case of losing the dynamic minister who was driving the vax plans? Surely it should now just roll along by momentum?
Is it possibly constrained by the 6 month delay requirement? So should pick up in a month or two?
Inzamam Rashid @inzyrashid EXCLUSIVE: @SkyNews can reveal 4 areas hit hardest by Covid have been identified as "areas of enduring transmission" & will receive further funding from central government on 22nd Oct. Includes: Bolton, Luton, Blackburn & Leicester.
Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?
Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.
It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.
It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.
Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.
You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.
It’s totally insidious.
I don't like your use of the phrase "the gay community" there. You're falling into the very pratfall that Stonewall want you to make.
Who is this "gay community" of whom you refer? How is its membership determined? Is its leadership democratically elected? Who are its representatives?
The "gay community" doesn't treat anyone in any way with regards to groupthink any more than the "blonde community" or the "freckles" community does.
Stonewall and its ilk represent a teeny tiny fraction of "the gay community" almost all of whom are nothing more or less than perfectly normal individuals with their own opinions and beliefs that just so happen to be gay.
We shouldn't recognise anyone who deems themselves self-appointed guardians of a "community". Let alone that hideous phrase a "community leader".
And that's exactly the point. Stonewall purport to speak for all gay people. The arrogance is appalling and dangerous.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?
Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.
It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.
It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.
Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.
You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.
It’s totally insidious.
I don't like your use of the phrase "the gay community" there. You're falling into the very pratfall that Stonewall want you to make.
Who is this "gay community" of whom you refer? How is its membership determined? Is its leadership democratically elected? Who are its representatives?
The "gay community" doesn't treat anyone in any way with regards to groupthink any more than the "blonde community" or the "freckles" community does.
Stonewall and its ilk represent a teeny tiny fraction of "the gay community" almost all of whom are nothing more or less than perfectly normal individuals with their own opinions and beliefs that just so happen to be gay.
We shouldn't recognise anyone who deems themselves self-appointed guardians of a "community". Let alone that hideous phrase a "community leader".
And that's exactly the point. Stonewall purport to speak for all gay people. The arrogance is appalling and dangerous.
Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.
Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
A former finance director used to say the first results are always estimates whereas the revisions are actuals.
Which implies a systematic flaw in the estimation.
I recall observing an argument once around 'efficiency' targets being achieved, and that they were always overestimated. The one in charge made a lot of good points about the difficulty of estimating some of the issues and their impacts, but the person responding essentially just, in exasperation, went "Yes, but they are always over estimates. If it was just hard to get right wouldn't we at least occasionally be under estimating?"
See new Tweets Conversation Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 2h BREAKING
@BBCNewsnight has learned that gas shipping firm CNG @CNGenergyUK has written to its domestic supplier company customers saying it will no longer be providing them with gas - and they should seek alternative shippers...
Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
** raises hand as far as it can go and waves furiously **
Inzamam Rashid @inzyrashid EXCLUSIVE: @SkyNews can reveal 4 areas hit hardest by Covid have been identified as "areas of enduring transmission" & will receive further funding from central government on 22nd Oct. Includes: Bolton, Luton, Blackburn & Leicester.
"...will receive further funding from central government" - in 9 days time? Why delay?
Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
He did have strong personal reasons.
And it's too early to say yet, as the customs inward controls have still not been implemented.
Inzamam Rashid @inzyrashid EXCLUSIVE: @SkyNews can reveal 4 areas hit hardest by Covid have been identified as "areas of enduring transmission" & will receive further funding from central government on 22nd Oct. Includes: Bolton, Luton, Blackburn & Leicester.
"...will receive further funding from central government" - in 9 days time? Why delay?
Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
...yet.
To be fair, those fears (which I personally shared) related to the potential 'no deal' situation IIRC.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?
Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.
It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.
It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.
Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.
You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.
It’s totally insidious.
I don't like your use of the phrase "the gay community" there. You're falling into the very pratfall that Stonewall want you to make.
Who is this "gay community" of whom you refer? How is its membership determined? Is its leadership democratically elected? Who are its representatives?
The "gay community" doesn't treat anyone in any way with regards to groupthink any more than the "blonde community" or the "freckles" community does.
Stonewall and its ilk represent a teeny tiny fraction of "the gay community" almost all of whom are nothing more or less than perfectly normal individuals with their own opinions and beliefs that just so happen to be gay.
We shouldn't recognise anyone who deems themselves self-appointed guardians of a "community". Let alone that hideous phrase a "community leader".
Stonewall are as representative of the gay community as Jeremy Corbyn is representative of Labour MPs or the IRA are of Catholics.
Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
He did have strong personal reasons.
And it's too early to say yet, as the customs inward controls have still not been implemented.
I’m aware of his concerns, but I think he went way over the top. He is missed here.
Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
** raises hand as far as it can go and waves furiously **
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
I don't pretend to really understand why some positions have gotten to where they are now. It seems in some areas to be at the point that we should all be hyper aware of peoples differences, and make those all consuming identities, and in others that to suggest biology has any relevance at all is a hateful stance.
But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
You can change the law.
You cannot change biology.
King Canute taught us that.
Any law which is fundamentally out of line with reality will not last long in practice, will often be broken and will likely cause a great deal of misery while it exists.
Laws making homosexuality illegal, for instance.
In fairness, Cyclefree, that final one lasted over 400 years. It was frequently broken and undoubtedly caused much misery, but you can hardly say it ‘didn’t last long in practice.’
And it certainly put paid to the genius Alan Turing who helped Bletchley Park save many many lives in WW2.
OK, have seen the Jezbollah video. Very funny - that he made a bully and a liar head the party complaints department demonstrates just how idiotic the cult had become.
This truly is a leftie government, Sunak is a pound shop Gordon Brown.
Pension savers face risk of higher fees as Sunak seeks billions for ‘levelling up’
Ministers are looking to relax rules shielding tens of millions of UK retirement savers from high charges as they step up efforts to funnel pension fund cash into the government’s “levelling up” agenda.
Officials are working on proposals to dilute the 0.75 per cent ceiling on annual management fees, which was put in place in 2016 to protect workers auto-enrolled into workplace pensions from having their savings eroded by high charges.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak is looking at ways to tap billions of pounds of pension fund cash to invest in long-term projects, including infrastructure schemes, renewable energy projects and innovative tech firms, to help deliver on UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s pledge to spread economic growth across the UK.
1) NEW: the @StephenNolan programme has launched a series of podcasts on @BBCSounds investigating the influence of @stonewalluk on public institutions - including @Ofcom and the @BBC
Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.
You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
I don't pretend to really understand why some positions have gotten to where they are now. It seems in some areas to be at the point that we should all be hyper aware of peoples differences, and make those all consuming identities, and in others that to suggest biology has any relevance at all is a hateful stance.
But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
You can change the law.
You cannot change biology.
King Canute taught us that.
Any law which is fundamentally out of line with reality will not last long in practice, will often be broken and will likely cause a great deal of misery while it exists.
Laws making homosexuality illegal, for instance.
In fairness, Cyclefree, that final one lasted over 400 years. It was frequently broken and undoubtedly caused much misery, but you can hardly say it ‘didn’t last long in practice.’
And it certainly put paid to the genius Alan Turing who helped Bletchley Park save many many lives in WW2.
No it didn't. There is a lot of doubt as to whether Turing s death was suicide at all.
Inzamam Rashid @inzyrashid EXCLUSIVE: @SkyNews can reveal 4 areas hit hardest by Covid have been identified as "areas of enduring transmission" & will receive further funding from central government on 22nd Oct. Includes: Bolton, Luton, Blackburn & Leicester.
The others are Bradford, Rochdale, Slough, Bristol, Peterborough, Oldham, Sandwell, Kirklees, Preston, Hartlepool, Tameside, Middlesbrough, Burnley, Ealing, Manchester and Hyndburn.
Euro-twitter getting quiet poetic in their frustration, about UK not being trustworthy:
https://twitter.com/PalmeirasCk/status/1448238277933387783 Absolutely, but it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Argentina was the 6th largest economy on earth in 1900. And it collapsed as a result of this very thing, it could no longer be trusted. It’s fine to already be wealthy like Johnson, etc, and think this is a game.
What happened to Argentina?
I know there is interesting military history in that they all had bigger navies than the USA.
I thought the crash was mainly because it had run out of bird-poo.
In my understanding:
Military coup, leading to import substitution instead of investing in agriculture (where it had a comparative advantage and which had made it rich in the first place). Coupled with political instability and poor macroeconomic management, the result was hyperinflation and underinvestment.
What makes it pertinent is that Johsononism is Peronism. Not similar, actually is, including the three pillars of social justice, national sovereignty and economic independence, as well as a system of patronage that goes through the party. As Argentina is hardly a poster child, it raises the question of whether the UK is destined for a similar trajectory.
Answer, not necessarily. The rot had already set in by the 1930s - Peron just made it worse, although his first few years were relatively successful. The diversion from a solid base in agriculture was certainly to blame, as you point out, plus intermittent military coups.
I think Johnson may end up doing less damage than Peron simply because he lacks that man's energy. Levelling Up is just a slogan to Johnson. Peron tried to put into practice.
Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
He didn't flounce out. It was more a constructive dismissal by another poster.
Comments
Then Osborne brought in the ONS and the situation reversed.
@inzyrashid
EXCLUSIVE:
@SkyNews
can reveal 4 areas hit hardest by Covid have been identified as "areas of enduring transmission" & will receive further funding from central government on 22nd Oct.
Includes: Bolton, Luton, Blackburn & Leicester.
In deliberate contrast to when Brown was in charge.
See new Tweets Conversation
Ben Chu @BenChu_
·
2h
BREAKING
@BBCNewsnight has learned that gas shipping firm CNG @CNGenergyUK
has written to its domestic supplier company customers saying it will no longer be providing them with gas - and they should seek alternative shippers...
https://twitter.com/bmvg_bundeswehr/status/1448336684261720078
Take the worst position when it comes to sales and costs.
Don't overestimate sales and assume the costs will be on the high side.
And it's too early to say yet, as the customs inward controls have still not been implemented.
To be fair, those fears (which I personally shared) related to the potential 'no deal' situation IIRC.
It's a tradition that goes back a couple of centures.
https://www-bundeswehr-de.translate.goog/de/aktuelles/meldungen/grosser-zapfenstreich-feierlichste-zeremonie-bundeswehr-5228576
Are the Lib Dems behind this?
https://twitter.com/GraphCrimes/status/1448190784239554563
Brexit: Most NI checks on British goods to be scrapped
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-58871221
Pension savers face risk of higher fees as Sunak seeks billions for ‘levelling up’
Ministers are looking to relax rules shielding tens of millions of UK retirement savers from high charges as they step up efforts to funnel pension fund cash into the government’s “levelling up” agenda.
Officials are working on proposals to dilute the 0.75 per cent ceiling on annual management fees, which was put in place in 2016 to protect workers auto-enrolled into workplace pensions from having their savings eroded by high charges.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak is looking at ways to tap billions of pounds of pension fund cash to invest in long-term projects, including infrastructure schemes, renewable energy projects and innovative tech firms, to help deliver on UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s pledge to spread economic growth across the UK.
https://www.ft.com/content/a8cad0f1-fd85-40ed-aa19-e71728f10825
New Thread
Yes, ONS data has long been an undercount in a lot of areas.