politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mind the Gap
Comments
-
Its funny how many in the US don't understand why their currency is strengthening, as they get how (relatively) bad things are economically in the US right now, but they fail to comprehend that things are worse than relatively bad in Europe and Japan right now. And in economic terms, its the relative that matters- capital is moving to the US as the least dirty shirt......not that it has much to beat given the state of the wider European and Japanese economies right now.Richard_Nabavi said:
Actually I was making a semi-serious point. Greece is absolutely tiny, a lot smaller in GDP terms than Michigan. No-one claims that the US is a basket-case or close to collapsing because of the economic nightmare of Detroit, the murder rate in LA, or the illegal immigration problem in Texas. But the echo chamber of the Leavers gleefully jumps on any real or imaginary bad news anywhere in Europe (even if the bad news has absolutely zilch to do with the EU as such, let alone our membership of it) as somehow showing we should leave the EU.hunchman said:The latest I heard was that Detroit has started coming back.....although how long that will last with the mess that Illinois is in more generally with regard to pensions is open to question.........but this is all an aside, you know what I meant by economic area within a wider global sense!
0 -
No problem with excluding those who have committed serious crimes. However I'm generally very uncomfortable that a British citizen should be forced to leave their home country on the basis of who they chose to marry.Cyclefree said:
There are a number of things it does not cover, for length reasons, apart from anything else.not_on_fire said:A very good article. However it does not address the two main classes of non-economic immigrant: spouses and children of British citizens, and students
On the whole I think under age children and spouses should be together. But two points:-
1. We need to deal with abuses of the "right to family life". If you marry a foreigner you have to accept that you may be required to move with your spouse to their country e.g. If your spouse breaks laws and is no longer persona grata here. The right to family life is not inextricably linked to a life in the UK. It is perfectly possible to have a family life in many many other countries.
Also re: your point 3, I'm confused. In the current rules it is nigh on impossible for a non-EU migrant to move their parents/siblings to the UK based purely on their residence.
0 -
Isn't this a false syllogism? "You can reduce immigration by crashing the economy" does NOT mean "Reducing or controlling immigration (more than we are doing currently) will crash the economy."Scott_P said:
...who are coming because our economy is booming.Mortimer said:More than 300,000 new EU immigrants per year is certainly not a winning message.
Osborne actually predicted this on the BBC show earlier.
"You can reduce immigration by crashing the economy"
Which is exactly what the Brexiteers are proposing.
It's Genius. Can't possibly fail...
It's a clever sleight of hand by Osborne. But it is not accurate. The optimum level of immigration is not zero. But neither is it infinity. Within the EU however it is, to all intents and purposes, infinity.0 -
Oh dear! That is the sound of the 'natural born' can being ripped open by a 1905 vintage can opener.RobD said:
Isn't anyone born in the US eligible to be the President? (he says as he hears the sound of an enormous can of worms being opened)RodCrosby said:
Confusing me with someone else. His father was a (British) Kenyan, which he concedes himself.EPG said:
So you're saying she's a witch, the same way you said Obama was a lying Kenyan.RodCrosby said:
Whereas, you are one of her Flying Monkeys, I suppose...Jobabob said:
I doubt you have ever met Hillary, nor know her at all.RodCrosby said:
None of them, with my amateur psychology hat on. Anyhow, I've known women like Clinton up close and personal. Bad, bad news...dugarbandier said:
no particular fan of Hilary, but which of these doesn't apply to the Donald, too?RodCrosby said:morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable
But DYOR.
Not what the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers had in mind for father of a POTUS.0 -
I agree. And it's the same thing with Brexit. The SNP said the No side was scaremongering and everything would be fine, just as the Leave side are saying Remain is scaremongering now, everything will be fine if we leave the EU. Turns out No weren't scaremongering and if Scotland had voted Yes the consequences would have been catastrophic. Let's hope we don't find out the same is true of Brexit.hunchman said:
That Unionist chestnut yet again! As I've said countless times on here on the subject, the appeal of Scottish independence was and is by and large an EMOTIONAL one, and not an ECONOMIC one.SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.Philip_Thompson said:
Though what if there is no economic collapse?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
0 -
Why is it so easy and quick for Australia and South Korea then? Bigger market than ours? Higher GDP than ours? I'm curious?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, you seem to have forgotten that (a) we'd have to make a lot of deals to replace existing ones, and (b) whilst we'd have a simpler set of vested interests on our side, we'd also have a lesser incentive on the other side to do a deal. It's cloud cuckoo-land to think this on balance would be hugely easier; rather the reverse, probably, as the US has made clear.BenedictWhite said:
No. The EU can't negotiate trade deals quickly, we can. We don't have the burden of 28 sets of vested interests we only have one.
It isn't unknowable, it's known.0 -
OK, I shall email PtP.BenedictWhite said:
You're on. a fiver?0 -
I was referring to people who marry non-British people who commit crimes and whom we then seek to deport. I don't think that deportation should be overridden simply because they have married a British citizen. The person should be deported and it is up to their spouse to decide to follow them or not. "For better or worse" and all that.not_on_fire said:
No problem with excluding those who have committed serious crimes. However I'm generally very uncomfortable that a British citizen should be forced to leave their home country on the basis of who they chose to marry.Cyclefree said:
There are a number of things it does not cover, for length reasons, apart from anything else.not_on_fire said:A very good article. However it does not address the two main classes of non-economic immigrant: spouses and children of British citizens, and students
On the whole I think under age children and spouses should be together. But two points:-
1. We need to deal with abuses of the "right to family life". If you marry a foreigner you have to accept that you may be required to move with your spouse to their country e.g. If your spouse breaks laws and is no longer persona grata here. The right to family life is not inextricably linked to a life in the UK. It is perfectly possible to have a family life in many many other countries.
Also re: your point 3, I'm confused. In the current rules it is nigh on impossible for a non-EU migrant to move their parents/siblings to the UK based purely on their residence.
Marriage to a British citizen should not be some sort of winning trump card overriding the state's legitimate, indeed essential, role to protect its citizens from harm from wrongdoers.0 -
New slick video from 'Stronger In', is that OGH at 1.05?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMYIvK6DEOg0 -
Correct. So it would be hard to tell if it was leaving or the collapse of the basket case that caused a dip in GDP.SouthamObserver said:
We'll feel the affect whether we are in or out of the EU.BenedictWhite said:
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
On the other hand, if we were out we could be forging free trade deals to offset the loss of market by collapse of said basket case, mitigating the disaster.0 -
Philip_Thompson said:
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.Philip_Thompson said:
Though what if there is no economic collapse?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
The same is not true here.
The City is a pretty big deal for us. The Aussie points system means the end of passporting.Philip_Thompson said:
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.Philip_Thompson said:
Though what if there is no economic collapse?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
The same is not true here.
0 -
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
0 -
We can already trade with the rest of the world. And if a basket case collapses a free trade deal with Korea isn't going to help much.BenedictWhite said:
Correct. So it would be hard to tell if it was leaving or the collapse of the basket case that caused a dip in GDP.SouthamObserver said:
We'll feel the affect whether we are in or out of the EU.BenedictWhite said:
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
On the other hand, if we were out we could be forging free trade deals to offset the loss of market by collapse of said basket case, mitigating the disaster.
0 -
@RichardNabavi
'The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse'
The same economic collapse along with the loss of 3 million jobs we would have if we didn't join the Euro ?0 -
OK... The bet is off if we remain on the grounds that it would be a tie... (The EU would be negotiating on our behalf and we could not negotiate one on our own)Scott_P said:
OK, I shall email PtP.BenedictWhite said:
You're on. a fiver?0 -
Also why was it so easy for EFTA to do trade deals with countries the EU has found so problematic?BenedictWhite said:
Why is it so easy and quick for Australia and South Korea then? Bigger market than ours? Higher GDP than ours? I'm curious?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, you seem to have forgotten that (a) we'd have to make a lot of deals to replace existing ones, and (b) whilst we'd have a simpler set of vested interests on our side, we'd also have a lesser incentive on the other side to do a deal. It's cloud cuckoo-land to think this on balance would be hugely easier; rather the reverse, probably, as the US has made clear.BenedictWhite said:
No. The EU can't negotiate trade deals quickly, we can. We don't have the burden of 28 sets of vested interests we only have one.
It isn't unknowable, it's known.0 -
AgreedBenedictWhite said:OK... The bet is off if we remain
0 -
Yep, the parallels with the Scottish independence vote continue to be uncanny. The SNP spent much of their time dismissing the various warnings being issued from institutions around the world. Let's hope Leave turn out to be more right than Yes was in Scotland.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
0 -
Well, not going into the Euro was the end of the city wasn't it?SouthamObserver said:Philip_Thompson said:
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.Philip_Thompson said:
Though what if there is no economic collapse?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
The same is not true here.
The City is a pretty big deal for us. The Aussie points system means the end of passporting.Philip_Thompson said:
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.Philip_Thompson said:
Though what if there is no economic collapse?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
The same is not true here.
Bottom line is that and end to free movement is a must for leave.0 -
The good news is that we would have Corbyn and McDonnell to steer the ship of state away from the rocks.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.0 -
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.hunchman said:
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! Nobody is denying that the climate warmed between the mid-1970's (when incidentally some were predicting a new mini-ice age, just like analysts screaming sell at the bottom of a bear market in stocks!) and 1997/98.....thanks to the increasingly robust activity of the sun in solar cycles 21 and 22. Since then its turned down, and global temperatures (non-manipulated) are starting to do so too. And anyway, Austrian wine production was very high in the early 1980's before the chemical addition scandal broke in 1985.....at which point I guess some historical vineyards were done away with following it up until about 20 years ago, when yet again people were caught moving in the wrong direction at a long term change in trend. Wine growing in the eastern part of Austria has an extremely long history. And as I'm sure you're aware, vines were grown in northern England in the medieval warm period (as well as crops grown in eastern Greenland.....witness the clue in the name!)..........so by all means carry on using your warmest ever nonsense......anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!FeersumEnjineeya said:
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.0 -
I hadn't seen this clip before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AYjGFuvmsc
Would the Remain apologists on here care to give a running report on how the EU intervention in Ukraine is working out?0 -
We'll see. I am not sure all Tory MPs will be quite so nonchalant about doing so much harm to the Square Mile and Canary Wharf.BenedictWhite said:
Well, not going into the Euro was the end of the city wasn't it?SouthamObserver said:Philip_Thompson said:
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.Philip_Thompson said:
Though what if there is no economic collapse?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
The same is not true here.
The City is a pretty big deal for us. The Aussie points system means the end of passporting.Philip_Thompson said:
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.Philip_Thompson said:
Though what if there is no economic collapse?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
The same is not true here.
Bottom line is that and end to free movement is a must for leave.
0 -
You have to say that in the present climate a nice, warm cuddly Aussie Koala of a points system probably looks pretty tempting to many voters.0
-
Just don't buy this argument. The electorate didn't trust 'We're allllrrrrrright', they won't trust those two.Wanderer said:
The good news is that we would have Corbyn and McDonnell to steer the ship of state away from the rocks.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
More certainly, Osborne would be out of the picture. Which can only be a good thing for those of us hoping for firmer economic policy and less farting around the edges of taxation policy.
0 -
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge. That being the case, on Friday morning expect soothing noises to start very quickly. It's a Mexican standoff. We've just got the bigger gun.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
Which is why the treasury didn't lay it on with a spade, and no I don't actually trust the treasury but then I do not think they would knowingly under sell the doom either.0 -
Why do you remainers always think the world is the EU and one other country?SouthamObserver said:
We can already trade with the rest of the world. And if a basket case collapses a free trade deal with Korea isn't going to help much.BenedictWhite said:
Correct. So it would be hard to tell if it was leaving or the collapse of the basket case that caused a dip in GDP.SouthamObserver said:
We'll feel the affect whether we are in or out of the EU.BenedictWhite said:
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
On the other hand, if we were out we could be forging free trade deals to offset the loss of market by collapse of said basket case, mitigating the disaster.
Besides which we have little control on the basket case and its collapse.0 -
Its one miniscule piece of evidence in a much much larger jigsaw. You'll notice that I gave you examples from Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Greenland and northern England as well. These things have to be considered as a whole. Yes I'll be charitable and say that there have been isolated incidents of warmth, for example India recently when it got up to 51C. This is all a consequence of the decreasing solar energy, which has weakened the magentosphere around the world and the previously locked in global weather patterns with stable less 'wavy' jetstream patterns. The jetstream in the northern hemispehere has moved northwards on average and become much more wavy (totally contrary to the predictions of the AGW crowd 20 years ago).......which transports cold much further south than it used to, and conversely warmth further north (though rarer than the former)....with the opposite effect in the southern hemisphere. If you look back at the Dalton and Maunder minimum then there were isolated spells of warmth even in those times......but on average the climate was decidedly cooler than today.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.hunchman said:
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! .anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!FeersumEnjineeya said:
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.0 -
Cyclefree
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics0 -
We're done, the bet is sealed.Scott_P said:
AgreedBenedictWhite said:OK... The bet is off if we remain
0 -
And Yes said Scotland had the bigger gun too. It really is uncanny.BenedictWhite said:
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge. That being the case, on Friday morning expect soothing noises to start very quickly. It's a Mexican standoff. We've just got the bigger gun.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
Which is why the treasury didn't lay it on with a spade, and no I don't actually trust the treasury but then I do not think they would knowingly under sell the doom either.
0 -
2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.0 -
Presumably you think eugenics is a synonym for public policy?Roger said:Cyclefree
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
You need a new thesaurus old bean.0 -
I hope so too; at least Leave have in their favour a solid track record of EU warnings having been wrong on several occasions before.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, the parallels with the Scottish independence vote continue to be uncanny. The SNP spent much of their time dismissing the various warnings being issued from institutions around the world. Let's hope Leave turn out to be more right than Yes was in Scotland.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
Like "Wolf" that doesn't rule out being right this time, but with respect, the Europhiles have poisoned this well themselves.
(edited to add: Goodnight all, and many thanks for an enjoyable discussion, fantasy though it may prove to be.)0 -
This Remainer does most of his business in the US, China, Korea and Japan. The EU is not stopping anything we do. I also know people in those countries believe Brexit is insane. Let's hope they're wrong. If it turns out you're wrong, we are in deep trouble.BenedictWhite said:
Why do you remainers always think the world is the EU and one other country?SouthamObserver said:
We can already trade with the rest of the world. And if a basket case collapses a free trade deal with Korea isn't going to help much.BenedictWhite said:
Correct. So it would be hard to tell if it was leaving or the collapse of the basket case that caused a dip in GDP.SouthamObserver said:
We'll feel the affect whether we are in or out of the EU.BenedictWhite said:
Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
On the other hand, if we were out we could be forging free trade deals to offset the loss of market by collapse of said basket case, mitigating the disaster.
Besides which we have little control on the basket case and its collapse.
0 -
On trade deals in a Brexit scenario, clearly the overwhelmingly important one is the US, dwarfing all others except perhaps China.
However, we're not going to get a deal with the US until either TTIP has been concluded, or the US has given up on it. The EU ex-UK is obviously a hugely more important target for the US, and they wouldn't want to compromise it by agreeing a UK-only deal. In any case, no negotiations could even be seriously started until our position vis-a-vis the EU was sorted out.
With the best will in the world, this is all going to take years, as (to be fair) the US has made clear.0 -
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?BenedictWhite said:The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?0 -
Let's hope you're wrong Richard. I don't think you are, but we'll need Leave to have called this correctly.Richard_Nabavi said:On trade deals in a Brexit scenario, clearly the overwhelmingly important one is the US, dwarfing all others except perhaps China.
However, we're not going to get a deal with the US until either TTIP has been concluded, or the US has given up on it. The EU ex-UK is obviously a hugely more important target for the US, and they wouldn't want to compromise it by agreeing a UK-only deal. In any case, no negotiations could even be seriously started until our position vis-a-vis the EU was sorted out.
With the best will in the world, this is all going to take years, as (to be fair) the US has made clear.
0 -
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.MP_SE said:2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
0 -
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
And maybe you have an answer for this brilliant member of the QT audience a few weeks ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTCIwo3cEvU0 -
I think this will be very popular with voters if it can stand up to scrutiny...
Critics will have to be quite careful what they say.
There aren't too many votes in standing up for those who might not have enough points. Not right now.0 -
The idea that we would somehow be left standing if the German and Italian economies went south is a littlr far fetched, to say the least.Scott_P said:
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?BenedictWhite said:The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
0 -
Eugenics? Where in the world have I suggested that? I'm not into eugenics either or fascism come to that.Roger said:Cyclefree
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
I'm broadly in favour of sensible immigration where there are clear rules, the majority agree to them and they are enforced consistently. I am a child of immigrants and most of my family don't live in the UK.
But, hey, chacun a son gout.
I do enjoy your headers and happened to see part of the Leave ad this evening. Interesting to have your take on it.
Anyway, time to turn in. Thanks all for the comments, including the nice ones and @Roger for never failing to get the wrong end of the stick (
).
Thanks all for the debate.0 -
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.hunchman said:And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?0 -
Get the time right - it was at 1:03 lol!HYUFD said:New slick video from 'Stronger In', is that OGH at 1.05?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMYIvK6DEOg0 -
As the worst financial forcaster PB has ever seen if you're for Brexit it's time to be afraid. Very afraid!hunchman said:
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
And maybe you have an answer for this brilliant member of the QT audience a few weeks ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTCIwo3cEvU0 -
Night all. I leave you with this thought. Metropolitan liberal lawyers are going to make an absolute fortune from Brexit. That is a stonewall certainty. As for the rest, Leave had better be right. If they're not, this country and many others will be in deep trouble.
Bona nit :-)0 -
LOL I thought of responding to Roger, but thought it better to wait for you to do so as I was sure you would do a better job than me. I was right.Cyclefree said:
Eugenics? Where in the world have I suggested that? I'm not into eugenics either or fascism come to that.Roger said:Cyclefree
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
I'm broadly in favour of sensible immigration where there are clear rules, the majority agree to them and they are enforced consistently. I am a child of immigrants and most of my family don't live in the UK.
But, hey, chacun a son gout.
I do enjoy your headers and happened to see part of the Leave ad this evening. Interesting to have your take on it.
Anyway, time to turn in. Thanks all for the comments, including the nice ones and @Roger for never failing to get the wrong end of the stick ( ).
Thanks all for the debate.0 -
We are all indebted to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro.Richard_Nabavi said:
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.hunchman said:And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?0 -
I'm quite sure I'm not wrong on the specific point of a trade deal with the US. I do hope I'm wrong about the wider point, obv.SouthamObserver said:Let's hope you're wrong Richard. I don't think you are, but we'll need Leave to have called this correctly.
The absolute best economic scenario from the UK's point of view would be Remain + TTIP. That could be seriously good for us. Fingers crossed!0 -
It's not a piece of evidence at all, miniscule or otherwise, as the spokewoman for the Austrian wine growers confirms. It's just yet another case of AGW deniers misrepresenting the facts. Once you have acknowledeged that you've got this wrong, I'll be happy to discuss your next claim.hunchman said:
Its one miniscule piece of evidence in a much much larger jigsaw. You'll notice that I gave you examples from Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Greenland and northern England as well. These things have to be considered as a whole. Yes I'll be charitable and say that there have been isolated incidents of warmth, for example India recently when it got up to 51C. This is all a consequence of the decreasing solar energy, which has weakened the magentosphere around the world and the previously locked in global weather patterns with stable less 'wavy' jetstream patterns. The jetstream in the northern hemispehere has moved northwards on average and become much more wavy (totally contrary to the predictions of the AGW crowd 20 years ago).......which transports cold much further south than it used to, and conversely warmth further north (though rarer than the former)....with the opposite effect in the southern hemisphere. If you look back at the Dalton and Maunder minimum then there were isolated spells of warmth even in those times......but on average the climate was decidedly cooler than today.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.hunchman said:
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! .anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!FeersumEnjineeya said:
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.0 -
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.
Based on their track record at prediction, only the very credulous or self interested would trust them this time around.
That's what Remainers can't understand. Nobody gives a f8ck what the Lagardes and the Carneys think.
It's not rebellion, or bloody mindedness. Its a calculation based on the track record of these institutions. WHich is shite.
Its like PB. Why should posters trust or pay attention to people who got things spectacularly wrong in May 2015?0 -
I remember being in the Market Place in the centre of Abingdon during the 2001 general election campaign listening to Mr Hague saying 'Vote Tory to save the Pound'........and now the same Mr Hague up to his neck in misdeeds that I could elucidate upon being in the Remain campaign......you couldn't make this $hit up it you tried, excuse my language at this time of night. So I don't need to take any lectures thank you on the consistency of wee Willie down the years...........Richard_Nabavi said:
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.hunchman said:And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?0 -
If there's a significant downturn post-Leave (which is the scenario Richard is discussing) the election would fall into Labour's lap. Obviously they would do a lot better with leaders who were not clowns but if there is a serious recession post-Leave - that's to say, if it seems that the Tories (led by Boris, Gove or whoever) ignored warnings which subsequently appeared to be correct - they will be seen as criminally incompetent.Mortimer said:
Just don't buy this argument. The electorate didn't trust 'We're allllrrrrrright', they won't trust those two.Wanderer said:
The good news is that we would have Corbyn and McDonnell to steer the ship of state away from the rocks.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
More certainly, Osborne would be out of the picture. Which can only be a good thing for those of us hoping for firmer economic policy and less farting around the edges of taxation policy.0 -
Reminds me of a strange article in the Evening Standard around the SindyRef. The thought was that a plummeting oil price would actually be great for an independent Scotland, because it would force Osborne to shower Scotland with negotiation goodies to prevent England being dragged down with it.SouthamObserver said:
The idea that we would somehow be left standing if the German and Italian economies went south is a littlr far fetched, to say the least.Scott_P said:
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?BenedictWhite said:The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?0 -
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html#axzz4AH46yRSZSeanT said:
Where is this near-100% of economists? Link?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.MP_SE said:2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
0 -
And Ed Balls. Don't forget Ed Balls!Danny565 said:
We are all indebted to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro.Richard_Nabavi said:
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.hunchman said:And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
Anyway, bed time. Night all.0 -
natural born citizen - a noun and two qualifying adjectives.MTimT said:
Oh dear! That is the sound of the 'natural born' can being ripped open by a 1905 vintage can opener.RobD said:
Isn't anyone born in the US eligible to be the President? (he says as he hears the sound of an enormous can of worms being opened)RodCrosby said:
Confusing me with someone else. His father was a (British) Kenyan, which he concedes himself.EPG said:
So you're saying she's a witch, the same way you said Obama was a lying Kenyan.RodCrosby said:
Whereas, you are one of her Flying Monkeys, I suppose...Jobabob said:
I doubt you have ever met Hillary, nor know her at all.RodCrosby said:
None of them, with my amateur psychology hat on. Anyhow, I've known women like Clinton up close and personal. Bad, bad news...dugarbandier said:
no particular fan of Hilary, but which of these doesn't apply to the Donald, too?RodCrosby said:morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable
But DYOR.
Not what the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers had in mind for father of a POTUS.
a citizen. You must be at least a citizen of the USA. So that rules me out. But there's more...
a born citizen. You must be at least a born citizen of the USA. So that rules out Arnie. But there's more...
a natural born citizen. We know, you might well be a born citizen by operation of a man-made law, e.g. a statute (viz Ted Cruz) or constitutional amendment (viz Obama, per Wong Kim Ark (1898)). But you are still NOT a natural born citizen.
For a natural born citizen is one born a citizen solely by virtue of natural law. What is natural law? The law of human posterity, procreation and birthright.
WHICH people has no statute ever touched upon in purporting to define their citizenship?
WHICH people did the SCOTUS "ascertain" and define as the natural born citizens?
"all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens..." Minor v Happersett (1875)
0 -
MTimT said:
LOL I thought of responding to Roger, but thought it better to wait for you to do so as I was sure you would do a better job than me. I was right.Cyclefree said:
Eugenics? Where in the world have I suggested that? I'm not into eugenics either or fascism come to that.Roger said:Cyclefree
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics
I'm broadly in favour of sensible immigration where there are clear rules, the majority agree to them and they are enforced consistently. I am a child of immigrants and most of my family don't live in the UK.
But, hey, chacun a son gout.
I do enjoy your headers and happened to see part of the Leave ad this evening. Interesting to have your take on it.
Anyway, time to turn in. Thanks all for the comments, including the nice ones and @Roger for never failing to get the wrong end of the stick ( ).
Thanks all for the debate. 0 -
It will not harm the city. (Any more than Europe is trying to harm it, and what is more, being outside of the EU will allow it to thrive)SouthamObserver said:
We'll see. I am not sure all Tory MPs will be quite so nonchalant about doing so much harm to the Square Mile and Canary Wharf.BenedictWhite said:
Well, not going into the Euro was the end of the city wasn't it?SouthamObserver said:Philip_Thompson said:Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.
The same is not true here.
The City is a pretty big deal for us. The Aussie points system means the end of passporting.Philip_Thompson said:
Oil was a case of all the SNPs eggs being in one oil barrel though.SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope that is the case. It's worth remembering the "scare stories" that the establishment No side were accused of telling about oil and the Scottish economy during the independence referendum turned out to be true.Philip_Thompson said:
Though what if there is no economic collapse?Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
The same is not true here.
Bottom line is that and end to free movement is a must for leave.0 -
Misrepresenting the facts! You don't deny the frost happened in May. Do you deny that NOAA is fraudulently manipulating global temperature data? And their acolytes like the University of East Anglia?......still reeling from the climategate incident that shredded any credibility that they have.FeersumEnjineeya said:
It's not a piece of evidence at all, miniscule or otherwise, as the spokewoman for the Austrian wine growers confirms. It's just yet another case of AGW deniers misrepresenting the facts. Once you have acknowledeged that you've got this wrong, I'll be happy to discuss your next claim.hunchman said:
Its one miniscule piece of evidence in a much much larger jigsaw.If you look back at the Dalton and Maunder minimum then there were isolated spells of warmth even in those times......but on average the climate was decidedly cooler than today.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.hunchman said:
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! .anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!FeersumEnjineeya said:
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.0 -
You're starting to tempt me. (Oops, I've already voted Remain.)Wanderer said:
Yes, the "price worth paying" stuff would come home to roost with a vengeance.Richard_Nabavi said:We need not trouble ourselves with what Corbyn might want to do in the event of a Leave result, but McDonnell is not completely stupid. The strategy is so blindingly obvious that there is no chance of McDonnell getting it wrong: wait for the economic collapse and the concomitant continuation of the Tory civil war (remember, there will be a leadership contest in the midst of the economic chaos), and blame the whole sorry mess on the Tories. This is a winning strategy by any standard, although the fact that Labour have managed to mislay Scotland is a complicating factor.
0 -
Worth pointing out that even if Humphrey had won the popular vote by 1% in 1968 Nixon would still have won the Electoral College.HYUFD said:
Are they? Hillary leads Trump by 1% in the RCP average and by 201 to 164 in the ECRodCrosby said:
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...Jobabob said:
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?RodCrosby said:
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.hunchman said:
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.williamglenn said:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-trump-romney-wealth-223712
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!0 -
Immigration control isn't eugenics. Also, it isn't fascist either.Roger said:Cyclefree
I find points 1-8 so distasteful I've decided to say nothing. You've obviously thought about what you've written but it's just way to fascistic for my taste. I'm just not into eugenics0 -
No they didn't.SouthamObserver said:
And Yes said Scotland had the bigger gun too. It really is uncanny.BenedictWhite said:
The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge. That being the case, on Friday morning expect soothing noises to start very quickly. It's a Mexican standoff. We've just got the bigger gun.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
Which is why the treasury didn't lay it on with a spade, and no I don't actually trust the treasury but then I do not think they would knowingly under sell the doom either.0 -
In which case Labour will not agree to an early General Election!MikeL said:Hypothetical Question:
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.0 -
Thank you Roger! Stick to what you know in advertising!Roger said:
As the worst financial forcaster PB has ever seen if you're for Brexit it's time to be afraid. Very afraid!hunchman said:
And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, if you believe that, fine, although I'm not sure why you are suddenly so confident about the Treasury forecast.BenedictWhite said:Just to be clear, the economic abyss into which we will sink, according to the treasury (not me, or Leave) is 4 quarters of -0.1%. So hardly anything at all. And we are supposed to notice this over the effect of say a EURO area banking collapse in say Italy or Greece?
My take is as follows:
- Chance of Brexit being positive for the UK economy in the short- to medium term: Zero. (There's no mechanism for it to be positive in that timescale, even if in the very long term it is - which I accept is possible)
- If we are lucky, we might get away with some short-term turbulence but little real damage. Say a 5% chance. I don't put it higher than that because I don't see how industry and the markets can be reassured as to what the new deal with the EU is going to be in any less than two years, and probably longer. But maybe the politicians will somehow find a way.
- Most likely scenario (75% chance) is a severe recession caused mainly by the uncertainty of the Brexit process (nothing much to do with the long-term merits of leaving, just the effect of the chaos and uncertainty over at least two years).
- Smallish chance (say 20%) of a major downturn, comparable to the 2008/9 crash, caused by a toxic combination of uncertainty leading to serious problems in the rest of the EU (which, after all, remains our main export market), a collapse of inward investment, political turmoil, and general chaos.
But the Leavers will of course dismiss all this. With an enviable degree of certainty, reminiscent of the nuttier kind of religious sect, they tell us that this is pure scaremongering, all the experts are wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.
We may find out soon.
And maybe you have an answer for this brilliant member of the QT audience a few weeks ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTCIwo3cEvU
Good night all.0 -
It can. You decide how many people you want of what type and assign scores.GIN1138 said:
I think this will be very popular with voters if it can stand up to scrutiny...taffys said:You have to say that in the present climate a nice, warm cuddly Aussie Koala of a points system probably looks pretty tempting to many voters.
0 -
Obama has made it clear that there is a queue which there isn't and he isn't around for that long is he?Richard_Nabavi said:On trade deals in a Brexit scenario, clearly the overwhelmingly important one is the US, dwarfing all others except perhaps China.
However, we're not going to get a deal with the US until either TTIP has been concluded, or the US has given up on it. The EU ex-UK is obviously a hugely more important target for the US, and they wouldn't want to compromise it by agreeing a UK-only deal. In any case, no negotiations could even be seriously started until our position vis-a-vis the EU was sorted out.
With the best will in the world, this is all going to take years, as (to be fair) the US has made clear.
You can have more than one trade delegation travelling the world at a time.0 -
The Lords would probably block it - given that it did not appear in the 2015 Tory Manifesto.GIN1138 said:
Would you need Labour votes to get round the fixed term parliament act? Couldn't the Tories just repeal the act with their majority?MikeL said:Hypothetical Question:
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.0 -
Yes, there was a frost in May, which destroyed vines in areas which had previously been too prone to frost to grow vines at all. The only reason that vines are growing in this area at all, according to the industry spokeswoman, is because the climate has warmed over the last 20 years or so. One late frost doesn't automatically signal a climate reversal. How is this so hard for you to understand?hunchman said:
Misrepresenting the facts! You don't deny the frost happened in May. Do you deny that NOAA is fraudulently manipulating global temperature data? And their acolytes like the University of East Anglia?......still reeling from the climategate incident that shredded any credibility that they have.FeersumEnjineeya said:
It's not a piece of evidence at all, miniscule or otherwise, as the spokewoman for the Austrian wine growers confirms. It's just yet another case of AGW deniers misrepresenting the facts. Once you have acknowledeged that you've got this wrong, I'll be happy to discuss your next claim.hunchman said:
Its one miniscule piece of evidence in a much much larger jigsaw.If you look back at the Dalton and Maunder minimum then there were isolated spells of warmth even in those times......but on average the climate was decidedly cooler than today.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You suggested that I see what the Austrian wine growers thought, so that's what I did. And, according to their spokeswoman, warming over the last 20 years or so has allowed them to grow vines in areas that were previously too cold. One late frost in these areas doesn't mean that the climate has suddenly reverted to what it was decades ago, and that's certainly not what the vine growers are claiming. It's just a rather pathetic bit of denialist straw-grabbing.hunchman said:
Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself! .anyone with an ounce of sense will see that its absolute bol*ox, not as though it will stop you for one moment I'm sure!FeersumEnjineeya said:
You'll forgive me if I choose not to accompany you on your little Gish Gallop.
Let's stick to your original contention, shall we? The video you posted claimed that the destruction of vines by a late frost constitutes evidence against global warming. However, the spokewoman for the Austrian wine industry that I quoted explained that it had only been possible to grow the vines in question at these locations in the first place because the climate had warmed over the last few decades. The death of these vines is therefore not an indicator of a cooling climate; rather, the fact that they exist in the first place is evidence of a warming climate. The video completely misrepresents the situation.0 -
F*ck off.Scott_P said:
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?BenedictWhite said:The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
For a start, no, the EU economy is likely to crash on it's own. Secondly it is a case of reducing migration.0 -
Of the 80% of economists reported by the Guardian, it turns out that only 17% bothered to answer the survey.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.MP_SE said:2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
Also, many business men and women, as well as politicians think Brexit would be good. Oh and some economists as well.0 -
Scott seems to be getting a little tired and emotional?BenedictWhite said:
F*ck off.Scott_P said:
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?BenedictWhite said:The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
For a start, no, the EU economy is likely to crash on it's own. Secondly it is a case of reducing migration.
0 -
Indeed and Wallace cost Humphrey several southern statesjustin124 said:
Worth pointing out that even if Humphrey had won the popular vote by 1% in 1968 Nixon would still have won the Electoral College.HYUFD said:
Are they? Hillary leads Trump by 1% in the RCP average and by 201 to 164 in the ECRodCrosby said:
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...Jobabob said:
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?RodCrosby said:
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.hunchman said:
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.williamglenn said:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-trump-romney-wealth-223712
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!0 -
Wonder if he got an appearance fee, night!hunchman said:
Get the time right - it was at 1:03 lol!HYUFD said:New slick video from 'Stronger In', is that OGH at 1.05?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMYIvK6DEOg0 -
We may not have much choice, whether we remain or leave.SouthamObserver said:
The idea that we would somehow be left standing if the German and Italian economies went south is a littlr far fetched, to say the least.Scott_P said:
So Brexit could crash the whole EU economy?BenedictWhite said:The thing is, that the EU know that the prospect of a Brexit will strain Germany if no deal is done and could go further and push Italian banks very close to the edge.
But we get to keep the WOGs out, so worth it, right?
One of the reasons why our non EU exports have been growing as a share is the anaemic growth of the EU.0 -
I do think that when the FT or other papers use these 'experts' they should also mention their previous affiliations and views.SeanT said:
lol. The FT's favourite economists? The FT???? Why not ask the Morning Star's favourite economists, for their opinions on neo-liberal capitalism?Richard_Nabavi said:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html#axzz4AH46yRSZSeanT said:
Where is this near-100% of economists? Link?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.MP_SE said:2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
And it's not even 100%, nowhere near. It's 65-75% think Brexit will be bad - even of the economists the slavishly europhile FT likes to consult.
And just how sensible are these opinions, when you look close? Here's one, from an FT "expert", Willem Buiter:
"Brexit would be followed promptly by the break-up of the UK: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland leave the UK and join the EU; I would hope that Greater London — the region inside the M25 — would leave England and join the EU. Even if England stays intact."
Yes, Wales would leave the UK and rapidly rejoin the EU, eager to sample the delights of the euro. Then London would leave England.
Do you not have anything else?
So they should say something along the lines of
"Professor Willem Buiter, former Council Member of City in Europe and long time advocate for the UK joining the Eurozone"0 -
Ah but apparently its all a lie. Tony never really wanted us to join the Euro at all. He told us this last Sunday so it must be true.Richard_Nabavi said:
And Ed Balls. Don't forget Ed Balls!Danny565 said:
We are all indebted to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro.Richard_Nabavi said:
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.hunchman said:And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
Anyway, bed time. Night all.0 -
''Do you hate Johnny foreigner enough to crash the economy? Vote Leave ''
Given the way that British people have welcomed millions from abroad in recent decades, a demographic movement that has not been seen for centuries, your attitude is really quite nonsensical.
0 -
Seriously? I thought psycho active stuff had been banned? Perhaps they consulted this chap before?SeanT said:
lol. The FT's favourite economists? The FT???? Why not ask the Morning Star's favourite economists, for their opinions on neo-liberal capitalism?Richard_Nabavi said:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html#axzz4AH46yRSZSeanT said:
Where is this near-100% of economists? Link?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.MP_SE said:2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
And it's not even 100%, nowhere near. It's 65-75% think Brexit will be bad - even of the economists the slavishly europhile FT likes to consult.
And just how sensible are these opinions, when you look close? Here's one, from an FT "expert", Willem Buiter:
"Brexit would be followed promptly by the break-up of the UK: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland leave the UK and join the EU; I would hope that Greater London — the region inside the M25 — would leave England and join the EU. Even if England stays intact."
Yes, Wales would leave the UK and rapidly rejoin the EU, eager to sample the delights of the euro. Then London would leave England.
Do you not have anything else?0 -
@Richard_Tyndall
'I do think that when the FT or other papers use these 'experts' they should also mention their previous affiliations and views.'
The FT should also remind us of the 'experts' that said we had to join the ERM, the 'experts' that forecast economic collapse if we didn't join the Euro and that none of the 'experts' forecast the 2008 crash.0 -
You just don't get it do you?Scott_P said:
Not at all, just picking up the message from the Leave campaign tonight.GIN1138 said:Scott seems to be getting a little tired and emotional?
Do you hate Johnny foreigner enough to crash the economy? Vote Leave
A starter family home in my part of Sussex is now on the market for a price that means a household income of £75K. A former council house.
And what is the average household income around here? At best £44K.
It isn't about hating Johny foreigner you prick. It's about loving my children more.
It isn't also about crashing the economy. It's about a small potential according to the treasury, of the lowest drop in GDP for an actual recession.0 -
And clearly bonkers to boot.Richard_Tyndall said:
I do think that when the FT or other papers use these 'experts' they should also mention their previous affiliations and views.SeanT said:
lol. The FT's favourite economists? The FT???? Why not ask the Morning Star's favourite economists, for their opinions on neo-liberal capitalism?Richard_Nabavi said:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html#axzz4AH46yRSZSeanT said:
Where is this near-100% of economists? Link?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes. And only a half-wit would conclude from that that the near-100% of economists, as well as politicians and businessmen, are guaranteed to be wrong now.MP_SE said:2/3s (164) of economists polled by the Economist were wrong about joining the euro being good for the UK.
And it's not even 100%, nowhere near. It's 65-75% think Brexit will be bad - even of the economists the slavishly europhile FT likes to consult.
And just how sensible are these opinions, when you look close? Here's one, from an FT "expert", Willem Buiter:
"Brexit would be followed promptly by the break-up of the UK: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland leave the UK and join the EU; I would hope that Greater London — the region inside the M25 — would leave England and join the EU. Even if England stays intact."
Yes, Wales would leave the UK and rapidly rejoin the EU, eager to sample the delights of the euro. Then London would leave England.
Do you not have anything else?
So they should say something along the lines of
"Professor Willem Buiter, former Council Member of City in Europe and long time advocate for the UK joining the Eurozone"0 -
If Tony Blair walked up to me in the street and said he was Tony Blair, I'd get a second opinion.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah but apparently its all a lie. Tony never really wanted us to join the Euro at all. He told us this last Sunday so it must be true.Richard_Nabavi said:
And Ed Balls. Don't forget Ed Balls!Danny565 said:
We are all indebted to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro.Richard_Nabavi said:
Thank you for telling me what I was saying in 2000. I'm not sure how you think you know.hunchman said:And you were the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK?....and if you want to go even further back Mr Heath and the like in 1975 were telling us that staying in the common market was going to lead to an explosion in trade within the EEC. So forgive me for being cynical, but we've heard the scare stories before now, and from the same people. This time around as far as vote LEAVE is concerned is 3rd time lucky!
As it happens, it's total garbage that 'the very same people telling us around 2000 that not joining the Eurozone was going to be apocalyptic for the UK'. William Hague was telling us that? Really?
Anyway, bed time. Night all.0 -
-
Not sure about that - the Southern states went for Goldwater in 1964 and so would otherwise have gone Republican in 1968.HYUFD said:
Indeed and Wallace cost Humphrey several southern statesjustin124 said:
Worth pointing out that even if Humphrey had won the popular vote by 1% in 1968 Nixon would still have won the Electoral College.HYUFD said:
Are they? Hillary leads Trump by 1% in the RCP average and by 201 to 164 in the ECRodCrosby said:
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...Jobabob said:
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?RodCrosby said:
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.hunchman said:
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.williamglenn said:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-trump-romney-wealth-223712
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!0 -
LBJ won more southern states than Goldwater in 1964 and Wallace won states like Arkansas LBJ won. Though Humphrey won Texas, in the South at least Wallace split the Democratic vote helping Nixon through the middlejustin124 said:
Not sure about that - the Southern states went for Goldwater in 1964 and so would otherwise have gone Republican in 1968.HYUFD said:
Indeed and Wallace cost Humphrey several southern statesjustin124 said:
Worth pointing out that even if Humphrey had won the popular vote by 1% in 1968 Nixon would still have won the Electoral College.HYUFD said:
Are they? Hillary leads Trump by 1% in the RCP average and by 201 to 164 in the ECRodCrosby said:
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...Jobabob said:
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?RodCrosby said:
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.hunchman said:
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign . 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.williamglenn said:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-trump-romney-wealth-223712
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!0 -
One rather awful scenario I'm working on is Brexit triggers a house price boom. If GBP crashes there'll be an influx of rich from abroad buying up property, so it'll hit London and (as per usual) spread out. The A23/M23 and the London-Brighton train line has a chain of insurance/actuarial firms so it'll spread down thru Redhill, Crawley, Haywards Heath then Brighton and spread out.BenedictWhite said:A starter family home in my part of Sussex is now on the market for a price that means a household income of £75K. A former council house.
0 -
That may be a scenario you're working on... but it is already happening inside the EU.viewcode said:
One rather awful scenario I'm working on is Brexit triggers a house price boom. If GBP crashes there'll be an influx of rich from abroad buying up property, so it'll hit London and (as per usual) spread out. The A23/M23 and the London-Brighton train line has a chain of insurance/actuarial firms so it'll spread down thru Redhill, Crawley, Haywards Heath then Brighton and spread out.BenedictWhite said:A starter family home in my part of Sussex is now on the market for a price that means a household income of £75K. A former council house.
0 -
From Laura K's blog on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36422951)
"Witness today's plan for cutting VAT on energy bills if we left the EU. And tomorrow, a message that the campaign, buoyed by some recent nudges towards them in the polls, believes will pack even more punch."
I wonder what that might be?
Edit: if I had read the next line:
"On Wednesday, senior Outers will be on the road outlining how they claim they'd control immigration if we left the EU - by introducing a points system that would determine if people can come to live in Britain for every single wannabe immigrant."0 -
This is the boat remainers want us to sail on:
https://twitter.com/malc_hill/status/7376190160138608690 -
Interesting to see that after the UK leaves!BenedictWhite said:This is the boat remainers want us to sail on:
https://twitter.com/malc_hill/status/7376190160138608690 -
With a bit of luck they have a better grid laid out from now till June the 23rd. So far Leave have looked like rabbits caught in headlights.RobD said:From Laura K's blog on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36422951)
"Witness today's plan for cutting VAT on energy bills if we left the EU. And tomorrow, a message that the campaign, buoyed by some recent nudges towards them in the polls, believes will pack even more punch."
I wonder what that might be?
Edit: if I had read the next line:
"On Wednesday, senior Outers will be on the road outlining how they claim they'd control immigration if we left the EU - by introducing a points system that would determine if people can come to live in Britain for every single wannabe immigrant."
I'm surprised they're not being canned... but pleased.0 -
Quite.RobD said:
Interesting to see that after the UK leaves!BenedictWhite said:This is the boat remainers want us to sail on:
https://twitter.com/malc_hill/status/7376190160138608690 -
Have a read of this:Scott_P said:
Not at all, just picking up the message from the Leave campaign tonight.GIN1138 said:Scott seems to be getting a little tired and emotional?
Do you hate Johnny foreigner enough to crash the economy? Vote Leave
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/31/dalai-lama-eu-taking-many-migrants-germany-cannot-become-arab-country/0 -
A graph that demonstrates only that the developing world is developing. US GDP as a percentage of the world is also shrinking.BenedictWhite said:This is the boat remainers want us to sail on:
0
