Gardenwalker said:

ExiledInScotland said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/958321213876600832

Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.

We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.

All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s

Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.

Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.

The media are so obsessed with leaks , Brexit , and TM but I am not at all sure anyone is listening to them - just one big turn off

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

O/T - I feel like I’ve committed adultery.

I’ve cheated on Apple and bought a chromebook whilst the new MacBook Air comes out.

Which one?

(I love my, admittedly not cheap, Pixelbook.)

The Pixelbook.

I spoke to your father yesterday before purchase.

It’s going to be used mostly for editing PB when I’m out and about.

It's a great device. And if you are a consumer of Google cloud services then you'll absolutely love it.

Is Chrome as good as Radiohead?

https://www.wired.com/story/chrome-extension-malware/

Icebrg recently highlighted four malicious extensions in the Chrome Web Store that had more than 500,000 downloads combined.

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.

That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.

I thought a lot of it was due to the size of the 1997 rout - introducing a lot of Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win and are now 20 years older

But most of those "Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win [in 1997]" won't be MPs any more because the Tories won the seats back in 2005 and 2010? The likes of Nick Palmer, to take one local example.

It might have had a slight effect in clearing out a few Tory MPs who might have otherwise died had they remained in office (my own then-MP, Marcus Fox, is one such possible example - he actually died in 2002 but the demands of office could have hastened that) but that effect was probably relatively small - most elderly MPs by definition hold safe seats and even in a 1997-result, a party holds on to most of them.

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

ExiledInScotland said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/958321213876600832

Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.

We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.

All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s

Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.

Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.

So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?

Precisely.

Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/958309687904100352

Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.

Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.

The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.

That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.

JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.

Pope Francis is Argentine not European

Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.

As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church

Ha! There we have it

Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC

I hope you recognise it was a tongue-in-cheek post.

It would have been highly political in the 16th-19th Centuries.

It really isn't today.

Yes, though of course the Pope used to crown the Holy Roman Emperors

Gardenwalker said:

ExiledInScotland said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/958321213876600832

Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.

We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.

All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s

Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.

Because the economic consensus has never been wrong before.

Any economic model spits out what you want it to spit out from the economic assumptions you make going into it. Do they account for our inwards migration being more merit based? Do they account for the future being more service-based than the time period their gravity models were calibrated? Do they account for the coming structural changes caused by mass automation? Do they account for future crises from the unresolved flaws in the Eurozone?

calum said:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/tory-attacks-on-the-brexit-impact-report-will-help-corbyn/

You'd have thought that was obvious. But we live in an age of faith-based policy-making.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/andrewsparrow/status/958317164183867392

Remainers just spent the last 24 hours trashing the 'vassal state' nature of being in the single market without input during a short transition. Now they are arguing to do that on a permanent basis?

Beverley_C said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.

Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...

Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?

It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28570436

And I think 'anti-gay' might be a more accurate description than 'Christian'

It was Boris as Chairman of TfL.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25909961

I’ve always thought anti-gay was synonymous with Christian as some Christians keep on telling us.

Anyone who believes the Old Testament (which is where the gay bashers refer to) has the same status as the New is barely a Christian.

“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality

There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament however, The manner in which Elisha dealt with children who mocked him for his baldness, for example.

Do share. It’s been decades since I read the Book of Kings

Elisha cursed them and the Lord sent two bears to tear them to shreds - proving that God has the same sense of justice as a two-year old in a tantrum.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/958309687904100352

Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.

Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.

The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.

That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.

JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.

Pope Francis is Argentine not European

Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.

As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church

Ha! There we have it

Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC

France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.

Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/958309687904100352

Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.

Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.

The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.

That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.

JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.

Pope Francis is Argentine not European

Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.

As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church

Ha! There we have it

Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC

France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.

Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.

Burgundy, incorporating much of modern day France certainly was, as was the Kingdom of Italy until 1648

williamglenn said:

welshowl said:

If that involves some sacrifice in my wallet so I can look myself in the mirror comfortably in 15 years time so be it. I do not wish that of course, and actually I don't think that will be the case, but I sure as hell am not going to be persuaded by a graph of the last 4 quarters stats on anything.

That's a reasonable position.

I think the more significant thing about the current economic data is the success of the Eurozone. The rhetoric about it being a burning building and that we were shackled to a corpse is being shown to be entirely hollow.

This is the economy still on quantitative easing life support ten years after the crisis yet stil has 9% unemployment?

Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.

Bearing in mind that Corbyn's Hard Labour has a smaller lead over the Tories now than Miliband had in 2012 and Kinnock had in 1990, this embryonic new Tory domestic post Brexit programme under an (eventual new leader) could be more than enough to keep Corbyn out of power. A Tory abolition of tuition fees would make it a certainty -but whether they will be wise enough to do that,who knows? Imagine a Tory budget in 2021 which abolished tuition fees. Imagine the looks on the Shadow Cabinet faces as that was announced live. Imagine John McDonnell's reaction.

Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.

stevef said:

Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.

Bearing in mind that Corbyn's Hard Labour has a smaller lead over the Tories now than Miliband had in 2012 and Kinnock had in 1990, this embryonic new Tory domestic post Brexit programme under an (eventual new leader) could be more than enough to keep Corbyn out of power. A Tory abolition of tuition fees would make it a certainty -but whether they will be wise enough to do that,who knows? Imagine a Tory budget in 2021 which abolished tuition fees. Imagine the looks on the Shadow Cabinet faces as that was announced live. Imagine John McDonnell's reaction.

Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.

Surely both Brown and Ed Miliband were in the supposed Labour 'mainstream' of Attlee, Wilson and Smith? It was their defeats after Blairism which enabled Corbyn, the most left-wing Labour leader since Foot

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.

That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.

I thought a lot of it was due to the size of the 1997 rout - introducing a lot of Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win and are now 20 years older

But most of those "Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win [in 1997]" won't be MPs any more because the Tories won the seats back in 2005 and 2010? The likes of Nick Palmer, to take one local example.

It might have had a slight effect in clearing out a few Tory MPs who might have otherwise died had they remained in office (my own then-MP, Marcus Fox, is one such possible example - he actually died in 2002 but the demands of office could have hastened that) but that effect was probably relatively small - most elderly MPs by definition hold safe seats and even in a 1997-result, a party holds on to most of them.

Another possible reason: the 2009-2010 expenses scandal resulted in Cameron clearing out - or them volunteering to clear out - a lot of the old Tory squirearchy in safe seats.

But, I don't know how many of them are no longer with us.

Yes, Cameron did a good job of increasing the turnover of MPs in safe seats, and many of those first elected in 2010, as in 1997, were in their 30s and 40s.

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/958309687904100352

Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.

Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.

The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.

That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.

JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.

Pope Francis is Argentine not European

Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.

As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church

Ha! There we have it

Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC

France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.

Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.

Henry VIII did the first Brexit.

If that was anything to go by, we'll have decades of division, followed by a compromise solution, that 100% of the population will never fully by into, but more or less accept.

John really did the first Brexit.

TOPPING said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/958309687904100352

Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.

Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.

The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.

That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.

JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.

Pope Francis is Argentine not European

Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.

As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church

Ha! There we have it

Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC

France was never part of the HRE, nor most of Italy - hence Voltaire's quip.

Henry VIII did run for election as its emperor though.

Henry VIII did the first Brexit.

If that was anything to go by, we'll have decades of division, followed by a compromise solution, that 100% of the population will never fully by into, but more or less accept.

John really did the first Brexit.

Hexit in the 16th century was indeed followed by compromise and muddle. But remember, the puritans grew in strength and by the 1640s had their own man in power, Cromwell who executed the king.

More evidence for David Cameron’s wise words about Twitter:
https://twitter.com/UoLLabStudents/status/958319083430318080

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

ExiledInScotland said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/958321213876600832

Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.

We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.

All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s

Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.

Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.

So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?

Precisely.

Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.

Indeed - even Leavers on this site forecasted "Short term pain for long term gain". They were however, rather vague on what counted as "short term". In a historical sense (and using Ireland as a comparison) short-term could be 50 years.

Brexit isn't about economics anyway. If it were, you'd be able to find people who would switch from leave to remain if the EU simply came up with a big enough cheque.

Recidivist said:

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

ExiledInScotland said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/958321213876600832

Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.

We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.

All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s

Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.

Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.

So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?

Precisely.

Continuity Remainers are seizing on the leaked forecasts as if this is some great revelation except its what was forecast by the Treasury pre-referendum. There's no news in these leaks.

Indeed - even Leavers on this site forecasted "Short term pain for long term gain". They were however, rather vague on what counted as "short term". In a historical sense (and using Ireland as a comparison) short-term could be 50 years.

Brexit isn't about economics anyway. If it were, you'd be able to find people who would switch from leave to remain if the EU simply came up with a big enough cheque.

Yep it was The Wild One referendum: What are you rebelling against? What've you got?

Gardenwalker said:

Elliot said:

Gardenwalker said:

ExiledInScotland said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/958321213876600832

Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.

We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.

All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s

Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.

Because the economic consensus has never been wrong before.

Any economic model spits out what you want it to spit out from the economic assumptions you make going into it. Do they account for our inwards migration being more merit based? Do they account for the future being more service-based than the time period their gravity models were calibrated? Do they account for the coming structural changes caused by mass automation? Do they account for future crises from the unresolved flaws in the Eurozone?

Someone else put it better than me.
You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.

It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.

Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.

What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.

But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.

There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.

Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.

Asteroid impacts or imaginary octopuses are extremely unlikely. The coming wave of automation or continued problems with Eurozone management are near guaranteed. You are unable to deal with these arguments so you engage in immature name calling. It's pathetic but it's a mentality that we see from so many arch Remainers I am no longer surprised by it.

Gardenwalker said:

Someone else put it better than me.
You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.

It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.

Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.

What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.

But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.

There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.

Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.

Sorry but this is nonsense, almost everyone on this board believes that free trade is economically beneficial.

The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.

Seems to be a certain amount of excitement on the other side of the pond.

Is it going to be bigger than Watergate? The suggest that the Hillary server investigation was a sham is going to be fun as well.

https://youtu.be/u8M52TPMxsA

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Someone else put it better than me.
You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.

It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.

Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.

What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.

But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.

There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.

Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.

Sorry but this is nonsense, almost everyone on this board believes that free trade is economically beneficial.

The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.

So back to trade deals with Tonga. Yay!

We already have a free trade arrangement for nearly half our exports. You are about to dismantle that and try to recreate it from scratch.

That, I'm afraid, is bonkers. By all means go the sovereignty* route, but don't be an idiot on the likely economic outcome of leaving the EU.

*we always were, obvs.

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

Judging by the article by some Tory MPs in the Sun comic this week (which I read in the local fish and chip shop while waiting for dinner to be wrapped up in it), there seems to be growing support among backbenchers for a radical package to spike Corbyn's guns. This includes replacing National Insurance with a National Health and Care Tax, and increasing corporate and rich contribution to it, borrowing £50 billion to finance a housing revolution, and an educational revolution to help those who dont go to university. This would combine with a massive attack on Corbyn's economic competence and threat to the UK's economy.

Labour's problem is that since 1994 it has been captured by two factions, the Blairite one, which was successful but with grave limitations and failings, and the Corbynista one which has led to Labour being taken over by the hard left, has delivered a third election defeat in a row, and will probably deliver a fourth in 2022. Hopefully Labour will then put a plague on both Blairite and Corbynista factions and return to the mainstream of Attlee, Wilson and Smith.

Surely both Brown and Ed Miliband were in the supposed Labour 'mainstream' of Attlee, Wilson and Smith? It was their defeats after Blairism which enabled Corbynism

I think Brown and Miliband each had one foot in the mainstream camp, and one foot in the Blairite camp. I wouldnt put either in the mainstream of Attlee and Wilson completely. Brown and Miliband also had grave personal failings which made them unsuitable to be PM. Brown had no personal skills, and Miliband was just a plonker. What Labour needs is a mainstream leader neither Corbynite or Balirite who is also personally fit to be a PM-and who is not a plonker like Miliband.

There was probably little difference between Brown and Ed Miliband and Smith and Gaitskill and Callaghan and Kinnock though and it was the failure of a shift back to a more 'mainstream' Labour position which opened the way for the hard Left to take back the party for the first time since the early 1980s with Momentum taking over where Militant left off

Kinnock certainly started well to the left of the others mentioned there - although he later moved to the centre. He was generally seen as being of the Soft Left - whereas Benn - and Corbyn - are from the Hard Left.

Hence Kinnock beat Hattersley for the leadership than a challenge from Benn after the 1987 general election defeat

Elliot said:

Gardenwalker said:

Elliot said:

Gardenwalker said:

ExiledInScotland said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/958321213876600832

Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.

We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.

All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s

Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.

Because the economic consensus has never been wrong before.

Any economic model spits out what you want it to spit out from the economic assumptions you make going into it. Do they account for our inwards migration being more merit based? Do they account for the future being more service-based than the time period their gravity models were calibrated? Do they account for the coming structural changes caused by mass automation? Do they account for future crises from the unresolved flaws in the Eurozone?

Someone else put it better than me.
You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.

It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.

Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.

What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.

But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.

There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.

Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.

Asteroid impacts or imaginary octopuses are extremely unlikely. The coming wave of automation or continued problems with Eurozone management are near guaranteed. You are unable to deal with these arguments so you engage in immature name calling. It's pathetic but it's a mentality that we see from so many arch Remainers I am no longer surprised by it.

Guaranteed according to who? Experts?
But you don’t believe in them.

And in any case, the connection between your coming wave of automation and the actual real case of the effects on wealth of trade barriers is...obscure, to be charitable.

Beverley_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.

On the other hand, the EU may have 6% of the population, but it has 25% of the world's GDP, the USA another 25%, China about 10% and Japan about 10%

So really, we need freer trade with the EU, USA, Japan and China. That is where the money is.

And it's near. Trade and distance are powerfully inversely related.

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.

All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s

Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.

Which part of that is news? That was widely-publicised to be the case prior to the Referendum but we as a nation voted to Leave anyway despite that. Nothing has changed since the Referendum except that we haven't had the post-referendum recession that was forecast.

So nothing has changed except for the fact that the near-term economic forecasts were demonstrated to be wrong. And we are still expected to believe medium/long-term economic forecasts?

There is good reason to rate these estimates in the medium term. The known unknowns are mostly well understood and are almost entirely downside. If you impose border controls this will have a real cost that you can estimate. Same with removing banks' financial passports. And so on. You can't model unknown unknowns. Long term, "something might turn up" is as good as it gets. Unknown unknowns aren't necessarily on the upside. Far from clawing back medium term losses, they could make them worse.

These estimates match the Treasury projections that have held up so far (early days) and third party analysis. They are all working off the same data. Saying you shouldn't believe any forecast because they are not always right is ignorant and damaging if it gets in the way of informed decision making.

My personal view is that the projections are best case for each of the scenarios. In practice there will be uncertainty and disruption that adds to these costs. My most likely outcome of EEA equivalent would only be a 2% GDP cost if the government was working systematically to that goal from June 2016, coordinating with the EU all the way. The delays, arguments and diversions to WTO and Canada+ would add significantly to that cost. It probably would end up more costly than the best case FTA, predicted to be 5%. A reversion to WTO is likely to be chaotic and and a lot more costly than the modelled 8%

Against that, I do expect the pols to aim to mitigate Brexit. The purpose of this report isn't to convince people to stay in the EU. It is to make politicians aware that their Brexit choices have consequences and provide data to inform those choices.

My central prediction within a wide band of likely outcomes is that Brexit will have a medium term cost in the high single digits %GDP. It's a real cost in jobs and welfare - it would be the equivalent of most of the healthcare budget for instance - but if people think it's a cost worth paying...

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Someone else put it better than me.
You either believe freer trade is economically beneficial or you don’t.

It seems you’re one of the flat Earth Brexiters.

Of course models don’t account for automation, or the so called flaws in the Eurozone. Neither do they account for an asteroid impact or the possibility we are living inside a artificial reality entirely imagined by an Octopus called Ned.

What is different from before Brexit is that it seems that the Treasury forecast was overcooked, albeit it was based on the assumption of an immediate activation of Article 50.

But also - now that the “options” are clearer, we have much more information to understand the impact historic and future.

There also no longer appear to be anyone claiming a Brexit boon. Brexiters have given that up as simply too risible, and are reduced to claiming that all economic forecasting is worthless.

Such logic would of course mean that all business and economic planning is simply a matter of going to a casino and trusting in your lucky number and rabbit’s foot.

Sorry but this is nonsense, almost everyone on this board believes that free trade is economically beneficial.

The question for those of us who believe in free trade but consider Brexit could be beneficial is not whether freer trade is beneficial or not . . . it is whether we prioritise freer trade with the ~6% of the Earth's population that live in the EU excluding the UK, or the ~93% of the Earth's population that is out of the EU.

So back to trade deals with Tonga. Yay!

We already have a free trade arrangement for nearly half our exports. You are about to dismantle that and try to recreate it from scratch.

That, I'm afraid, is bonkers. By all means go the sovereignty* route, but don't be an idiot on the likely economic outcome of leaving the EU.

*we always were, obvs.

By Tonga do you mean nations like the USA, China, India, Australia etc?

Theuniondivvie said:

david_herdson said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/958309687904100352

Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.

Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.

The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.

That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.

Yet the House of Lords is the upper house of the UK, so not that logical.

The Lords - like elements of its composition - is the product of its inheritance.

View_From_Cumbria said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.

My first sentence does.

EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.

Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.

I'm pretty sure the age of Conservative MPs entering parliament has not come down.

The difference comes from the Conservative Party under Hague being horrified by what happened 1992 to 1997.

Internally there are strong checks that MPs wanting to continue at a GE are fit enough to last the next parliament, Deo volente.

But more importantly potential candidates will not get through their PAB if there is any serious question about their health.

However, there is another check which tends to mean candidates fighting their first winnable GE are likely to be much older. They have to have some sort of a record. CCHQ tend to be fairly open minded - associations tend not to be. Most of the 1990s defections tended to be mavericks without much history and they tended to have entered parliament very young. True they are still out there and some were much older entering parliament. BUT, this has the effect of raising the age at which people first enter parliament as Con MPs.

Really?

1992-7

Alan Howarth - entered parliament 1983 (age 39), joined Lab 1995 (aged 51).
Emma Nicholson - entered parliament 1987 (age 46), joined LD 1995 (age 54).
Peter Thurnham - entered parliament 1983 (age 45), joined LD 1996 (age 58).
George Gardiner - entered parliament Feb 1974 (age 39), joined Ref 1997 (age 62) - Note: Gardiner had already been deselected by his local party before he defected.

1997-2001

Peter Temple-Morris - entered parliament 1974 (age 36), joined Lab 1998 (age 60)
Shaun Woodward - entered parliament 1997 (age 39), joined Lab 1999 (age 41)

With the exception of Woodward, all the others had good lengths of service in Westminster behind them as an MP and all entered parliament between 36-46 - which is probably the age at which most MPs enter the House.