politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bad news for Theresa May as ORB brings horrible polling for he

williamglenn said:

This is hysterical nonsense. The EEC always had free movement from its founding with the Treaty of Rome. As far as I can make out, if you object to anything concrete it's really the eastern expansion of the EU.

As usual, it seems you need a history lesson. When we (along with Eire and Denmark) joined in 1973 we brought some quite poor areas into the then EEC. Areas like Cornwall, the Scottish Highlands and of course the Republic were relatively poor compared to the rest of the EEC at that time. The largesse available went to these areas - Cornwall did very well in terms of infrastructure from Objective One funding as did Wales and the Highlands.

The admission of Greece in 1981 and later Portugal and Spain changed things. The accession of these countries changed the economic dynamic by bringing in areas which were relatively even poorer than the poorer areas of the UK so money went from the EEC to support rural Spain, Greece and Portugal and the previously well funded areas of the UK lost out.

Fast forward to the accession of the post Communist countries and in to the EEC/EU came a raft of even more impoverished areas. The Polish economy in GDP terms in 1988 was barely a third of that of Sweden. That unbalanced and distorted the EU and led to the north and west spaying for the east and to an extent the south.

The cynic might argue it also created a large pool of cheap labour for the richer economies to draw on but for various reasons conservatives, socialists and liberals were all in favour of expanding the EU - I wasn't. I'd have encouraged investment in the post-Communist countries and allowed a much longer transition period before full admission but that wasn't the thinking.

stodge said:

williamglenn said:

This is hysterical nonsense. The EEC always had free movement from its founding with the Treaty of Rome. As far as I can make out, if you object to anything concrete it's really the eastern expansion of the EU.

As usual, it seems you need a history lesson. When we (along with Eire and Denmark) joined in 1973 we brought some quite poor areas into the then EEC. Areas like Cornwall, the Scottish Highlands and of course the Republic were relatively poor compared to the rest of the EEC at that time. The largesse available went to these areas - Cornwall did very well in terms of infrastructure from Objective One funding as did Wales and the Highlands.

The admission of Greece in 1981 and later Portugal and Spain changed things. The accession of these countries changed the economic dynamic by bringing in areas which were relatively even poorer than the poorer areas of the UK so money went from the EEC to support rural Spain, Greece and Portugal and the previously well funded areas of the UK lost out.

Fast forward to the accession of the post Communist countries and in to the EEC/EU came a raft of even more impoverished areas. The Polish economy in GDP terms in 1988 was barely a third of that of Sweden. That unbalanced and distorted the EU and led to the north and west spaying for the east and to an extent the south.

The cynic might argue it also created a large pool of cheap labour for the richer economies to draw on but for various reasons conservatives, socialists and liberals were all in favour of expanding the EU - I wasn't. I'd have encouraged investment in the post-Communist countries and allowed a much longer transition period before full admission but that wasn't the thinking.

Is Greece poorer than the inland areas of North Wales? Or indeed Anglesey? Serious question.

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The closest parallel is probably when we left the ERM in 1992 - it was with hindsight very good economically in the medium term, but disastrous politically for the government of the day to have lost control of events.

What parallel do you see in terms of the practical impact of No Deal versus leaving the ERM?

Given that net trade in goods with the EU is around 8% of GDP, if I were to take a guess I’d say something like 0.5% off in Q2 (-25% by value of trade in goods with the EU), maybe down to a total of 1% by the end of the year before recovering early in 2020. There will be a technical recession, but the whole of Europe is about to get one.

Supply chains will adjust much faster than predicted, and government will be united in measures to reduce unnecessary friction. Companies already have a lot of plans in place, what’s causing the immediate problems is the uncertainty of which plan to implement.

The problem with that - and all other forecasts - is that they continue to rely on the UK consumer spending more than 100% of his or her income.

In the 2007-2008 recession, the government was able to compensate by dramatically lowering the tax burden, and interest rates, so that consumers in jobs effectively got big payrises. They spent this money, and therefore aggregate demand (in the UK) recovered strongly.

But things are a bit different now. Firstly, the net foreign investment position of the UK was positive a decade ago. Indeed, it was better than France, and Germany. Now, we're negative and getting worse. Secondly, government debt to GDP was about 40% then. It's now 90%, give or take. Thirdly, interest rates are still close to bugger all. Mortgage payments can't be cut much from here.

So, the ability of the government to raise demand through the usual methods isn't there.

The problem the UK economy continues to have is that it is fundamentally unbalanced. This isn't anything to do with Brexit, it's the consequence of Blair, Brown, Darling, and Osborne, who discovered that you could do Keynesianism by the back door by persuading people to spend more than they earned.

The real risk of No Deal Brexit is that it finally kicks off the inevitable rebalancing. In the 1990-93 recession, the household savings rate reached 15%. That's 11% above where we are now. To put in context, if we were to see a similar level of swing, it would be the same as Spain had during the Eurozone crisis. Now, I don't think it'll be that bad. But I think people are so fixated on Brexit, they forget that Britain doesn't currently pay its way. And that - one way or another - will revert.

Barnesian said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Barnesian said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Barnesian said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Barnesian said:

What are Mrs May's key characteristics?
- Stubborn
- Anti-free movement
- Favours blackmail as a strategy
- Kick the can but can pivot (GE 2017)
- Very committed and clued up on her deal.

My conclusion is that she will continue to try to get her deal (including backstop) over the line by "No Deal" blackmail, and when that fails, will go for an extension for a GE on her deal. She won't give up on it.

Because she survived her VONC, she is fireproof within her own party until the end of the year.

Her cabinet supports her deal so will probably support a GE on her deal (rather than a second referendum on her deal). It will get through parliament because Labour will support it.

The Tories will have a clear manifesto based on her deal. Vote for this and get Brexit or stay at home and get Corbyn (the blackmail bit). Labour, on the other hand, will have a real problem with their manifesto and will probably end up with a CU Brexit losing a lot of Remainer Labourites to the LibDems and splitting the centre left vote. Tories get an overall majority and pass her deal with two fingers to the DUP. Sorted.

"Tories get an overall majority and pass her deal ..." That's the problematic bit though, isn't it? Getting the ERG to vote for anything but Eurogeddon.

A big overall majority. So two fingers to the ERG as well. Also some of them will have stood as independents and lost their seats.

A big overall majority? Depends very much where Labour positions itself.

Yes. I'm assuming that Labour will take the Corbyn line on Brexit (we're leaving with CU) and lose support to the LDs. He will also try to make it a campaign on NHS, education, jobs etc which he did successfully last time but would fail this time as Brexit is top issue.

Tories on 42% Labour on 34% and LDs on 15% gives Tories an overall majority of 28.

The other question is whether she could get enough votes in the House to call an election. My understanding is that most of her own MPs would oppose a GE, so she may come up short.

She needs 417 votes. She needs about half of her MPs to vote for it. I'm sure she'd get that, particularly if they thought they could win and achieve Brexit.

Won't argue with you, Barnesian, but it's no gimme.

Foxy said:

Interesting to see how popular socialism is getting to be in the USA. As long as they can keep their guns I suppose.

https://twitter.com/stevemorris__/status/1092807628147879939?s=19

It is interesting that the US has, as a devoutly anti-socialist country, still had relatively high taxes on the wealthy. The top rate of tax was 63% from the 1920s and increased to 94% in 1944. It wasn't then reduced to 70% until 1964 and then to 50% in 1982.

ydoethur said:

Is Greece poorer than the inland areas of North Wales? Or indeed Anglesey? Serious question.

When Greece joined in 1981 it brought new areas of poverty into the EEC. That's not to say areas such as Cornwall and the Highlands weren't still poor relative to the rest of the EEC but they had competition for EEC funds from rural Greece and later from Portugal and Spain.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Interesting to see how popular socialism is getting to be in the USA. As long as they can keep their guns I suppose.

https://twitter.com/stevemorris__/status/1092807628147879939?s=19

It is interesting that the US has, as a devoutly anti-socialist country, still had relatively high taxes on the wealthy. The top rate of tax was 63% from the 1920s and increased to 94% in 1944. It wasn't then reduced to 70% until 1964 and then to 50% in 1982.

Interesting, Richard, but the effective rate of tax would be more telling, or even better the ratio of public spending to GDP. And then of course there is the way wealth is distributed, which I would think is pretty uneven in the States, but I've neither the time nor the inclination to chase up the stats!

rcs1000 said:

The problem with that - and all other forecasts - is that they continue to rely on the UK consumer spending more than 100% of his or her income.

In the 2007-2008 recession, the government was able to compensate by dramatically lowering the tax burden, and interest rates, so that consumers in jobs effectively got big payrises. They spent this money, and therefore aggregate demand (in the UK) recovered strongly.

But things are a bit different now. Firstly, the net foreign investment position of the UK was positive a decade ago. Indeed, it was better than France, and Germany. Now, we're negative and getting worse. Secondly, government debt to GDP was about 40% then. It's now 90%, give or take. Thirdly, interest rates are still close to bugger all. Mortgage payments can't be cut much from here.

So, the ability of the government to raise demand through the usual methods isn't there.

The problem the UK economy continues to have is that it is fundamentally unbalanced. This isn't anything to do with Brexit, it's the consequence of Blair, Brown, Darling, and Osborne, who discovered that you could do Keynesianism by the back door by persuading people to spend more than they earned.

The real risk of No Deal Brexit is that it finally kicks off the inevitable rebalancing. In the 1990-93 recession, the household savings rate reached 15%. That's 11% above where we are now. To put in context, if we were to see a similar level of swing, it would be the same as Spain had during the Eurozone crisis. Now, I don't think it'll be that bad. But I think people are so fixated on Brexit, they forget that Britain doesn't currently pay its way. And that - one way or another - will revert.

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of course, in the long run the economy's not going to get fixed whilst such a large percentage of the national wealth is locked up in housing. There's no incentive for most of us, other than the very well-off, to invest in business through shares when property offers such fat guaranteed returns (and when, for many people, being forced to take out a colossal mortgage means there's not much left for anything but day-to-day expenses for the rest of their working lives.)

(Edit: Actually, I think the rotten property market may even be the main reason why so many people still live beyond their means. When mortgages or rents are so large that you can't save very much, then the only way you may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

justin124 said:

Barnesian said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Barnesian said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Barnesian said:

What are Mrs May's key characteristics?
- Stubborn
- Anti-free movement
- Favours blackmail as a strategy
- Kick the can but can pivot (GE 2017)
- Very committed and clued up on her deal.

My conclusion is that she will continue to try to get her deal (including backstop) over the line by "No Deal" blackmail, and when that fails, will go for an extension for a GE on her deal. She won't give up on it.

Because she survived her VONC, she is fireproof within her own party until the end of the year.

Her cabinet supports her deal so will probably support a GE on her deal (rather than a second referendum on her deal). It will get through parliament because Labour will support it.

The Tories will have a clear manifesto based on her deal. Vote for this and get Brexit or stay at home and get Corbyn (the blackmail bit). Labour, on the other hand, will have a real problem with their manifesto and will probably end up with a CU Brexit losing a lot of Remainer Labourites to the LibDems and splitting the centre left vote. Tories get an overall majority and pass her deal with two fingers to the DUP. Sorted.

"Tories get an overall majority and pass her deal ..." That's the problematic bit though, isn't it? Getting the ERG to vote for anything but Eurogeddon.

A big overall majority. So two fingers to the ERG as well. Also some of them will have stood as independents and lost their seats.

A big overall majority? Depends very much where Labour positions itself.

Yes. I'm assuming that Labour will take the Corbyn line on Brexit (we're leaving with CU) and lose support to the LDs. He will also try to make it a campaign on NHS, education, jobs etc which he did successfully last time but would fail this time as Brexit is top issue.

Tories on 42% Labour on 34% and LDs on 15% gives Tories an overall majority of 28.

It is top issue for the commentariat and political anoraks but not for the electorate at large who are even more sick of Brexit today than was the case in June 2017.

And how joyful do you think that electorate will be to learn we are having another election?

Peter_the_Punter said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Interesting to see how popular socialism is getting to be in the USA. As long as they can keep their guns I suppose.

https://twitter.com/stevemorris__/status/1092807628147879939?s=19

It is interesting that the US has, as a devoutly anti-socialist country, still had relatively high taxes on the wealthy. The top rate of tax was 63% from the 1920s and increased to 94% in 1944. It wasn't then reduced to 70% until 1964 and then to 50% in 1982.

Interesting, Richard, but the effective rate of tax would be more telling, or even better the ratio of public spending to GDP. And then of course there is the way wealth is distributed, which I would think is pretty uneven in the States, but I've neither the time nor the inclination to chase up the stats!

I think you would be right that it is increasingly uneven since the 80s but I don't know (as in I genuinely don't know) about it prior to then.

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

_Anazina_ said:

You are assuming that we’d recreate BR, which there is no good reason to do. Other countries manage perfectly well with their railways in the public sector - why are we so down on our own abilities? It’s embarrassing

Because our record of public ownership has been frankly atrocious. I don't trust the Government (any Government of any party in this country) to get basic state things like collecting taxes right. Why on earth would I want to let them within a million miles of the railways again?

That, and what's the first thing that happens if Labour renationalises the railways? They'll freeze the fares to appease angry commuters. And who are the angry commuters? Disproportionately, they're wealthy or comfortably-off workers, and disproportionately they're concentrated in the South-East of England.

Ergo, bringing the railways back into public ownership = yet more sweeties for the richest part of the country, which I thought was the sort of thing we were meant to be trying to get away from.

And then, going forward, either the trains are starved of investment because most Government spending increases are set aside for the NHS and pensions, or if it does happen it therefore comes increasingly from general taxation rather than from fare revenues. Better trains for comfortably-off commuters would end up coming out of everybody's income, including that of a great many poor people and those in rural areas who may seldom (if ever) travel by train, but will get to watch more of their money being spent so that the aforementioned commuters may enjoy the privilege of an improved railway without having to cough up more for their tickets.

Finite resources would be better spent on bus services, which are dying on their wheels in most of the country outside of London.

A brilliant post.

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

_Anazina_ said:

You are assuming that we’d recreate BR, which there is no good reason to do. Other countries manage perfectly well with their railways in the public sector - why are we so down on our own abilities? It’s embarrassing

Because our record of public ownership has been frankly atrocious. I don't trust the Government (any Government of any party in this country) to get basic state things like collecting taxes right. Why on earth would I want to let them within a million miles of the railways again?

That, and what's the first thing that happens if Labour renationalises the railways? They'll freeze the fares to appease angry commuters. And who are the angry commuters? Disproportionately, they're wealthy or comfortably-off workers, and disproportionately they're concentrated in the South-East of England.

Ergo, bringing the railways back into public ownership = yet more sweeties for the richest part of the country, which I thought was the sort of thing we were meant to be trying to get away from.

And then, going forward, either the trains are starved of investment because most Government spending increases are set aside for the NHS and pensions, or if it does happen it therefore comes increasingly from general taxation rather than from fare revenues. Better trains for comfortably-off commuters would end up coming out of everybody's income, including that of a great many poor people and those in rural areas who may seldom (if ever) travel by train, but will get to watch more of their money being spent so that the aforementioned commuters may enjoy the privilege of an improved railway without having to cough up more for their tickets.

Finite resources would be better spent on bus services, which are dying on their wheels in most of the country outside of London.

Let the failing parts of the country rot. They voted to sabotage the successful bits through Brexit. Let them figure out a way to recover that doesn’t involve sponging off the bits of the country that they hate.

Black_Rook said:

rcs1000 said:

The problem with that - and all other forecasts - is that they continue to rely on the UK consumer spending more than 100% of his or her income.

In the 2007-2008 recession, the government was able to compensate by dramatically lowering the tax burden, and interest rates, so that consumers in jobs effectively got big payrises. They spent this money, and therefore aggregate demand (in the UK) recovered strongly.

But things are a bit different now. Firstly, the net foreign investment position of the UK was positive a decade ago. Indeed, it was better than France, and Germany. Now, we're negative and getting worse. Secondly, government debt to GDP was about 40% then. It's now 90%, give or take. Thirdly, interest rates are still close to bugger all. Mortgage payments can't be cut much from here.

So, the ability of the government to raise demand through the usual methods isn't there.

The problem the UK economy continues to have is that it is fundamentally unbalanced. This isn't anything to do with Brexit, it's the consequence of Blair, Brown, Darling, and Osborne, who discovered that you could do Keynesianism by the back door by persuading people to spend more than they earned.

The real risk of No Deal Brexit is that it finally kicks off the inevitable rebalancing. In the 1990-93 recession, the household savings rate reached 15%. That's 11% above where we are now. To put in context, if we were to see a similar level of swing, it would be the same as Spain had during the Eurozone crisis. Now, I don't think it'll be that bad. But I think people are so fixated on Brexit, they forget that Britain doesn't currently pay its way. And that - one way or another - will revert.

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of course, in the long run the economy's not going to get fixed whilst such a large percentage of the national wealth is locked up in housing. There's no incentive for most of us, other than the very well-off, to invest in business through shares when property offers such fat guaranteed returns (and when, for many people, being forced to take out a colossal mortgage means there's not much left for anything but day-to-day expenses for the rest of their working lives.)

(Edit: Actually, I think the rotten property market may even be the main reason why so many people still live beyond their means. When mortgages or rents are so large that you can't save very much, then the only way you may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

How low can it go?

Ishmael_Z said:

Quincel said:

Ishmael_Z said:

ydoethur said:

stodge said:

williamglenn said:

This is hysterical nonsense. The EEC always had free movement from its founding with the Treaty of Rome. As far as I can make out, if you object to anything concrete it's really the eastern expansion of the EU.

As usual, it seems you need a history lesson. When we (along with Eire and Denmark) joined in 1973 we brought some quite poor areas into the then EEC. Areas like Cornwall, the Scottish Highlands and of course the Republic were relatively poor compared to the rest of the EEC at that time. The largesse available went to these areas - Cornwall did very well in terms of infrastructure from Objective One funding as did Wales and the Highlands.

The admission of Greece in 1981 and later Portugal and Spain changed things. The accession of these countries changed the economic dynamic by bringing in areas which were relatively even poorer than the poorer areas of the UK so money went from the EEC to support rural Spain, Greece and Portugal and the previously well funded areas of the UK lost out.

Fast forward to the accession of the post Communist countries and in to the EEC/EU came a raft of even more impoverished areas. The Polish economy in GDP terms in 1988 was barely a third of that of Sweden. That unbalanced and distorted the EU and led to the north and west spaying for the east and to an extent the south.

The cynic might argue it also created a large pool of cheap labour for the richer economies to draw on but for various reasons conservatives, socialists and liberals were all in favour of expanding the EU - I wasn't. I'd have encouraged investment in the post-Communist countries and allowed a much longer transition period before full admission but that wasn't the thinking.

Is Greece poorer than the inland areas of North Wales? Or indeed Anglesey? Serious question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Wales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece

Greece gdppc 16,200, Anglesey 18,600.

Was this true prior to the crash 10 years ago? I thought the Greek economy was still 20% smaller than it was before the crash. Likewise, what was the GDPpc in Anglesey back then (or to be more precise, in 1981?

I honestly don't know, these aren't rhetorical questions or meant to be argumentative.

My knowledge is confined to what wikipedia is prepared to tell me.

And Wikipedia is out by €3,000.

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/business/business-news/anglesey-still-poorest-part-britain-14064497

So even if we accept the Greek figure as accurate - which strikes me as a bold assumption for many reasons - Anglesey is still barely above it.

ydoethur said:

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

_Anazina_ said:

You are assuming that we’d recreate BR, which there is no good reason to do. Other countries manage perfectly well with their railways in the public sector - why are we so down on our own abilities? It’s embarrassing

Because our record of public ownership has been frankly atrocious. I don't trust the Government (any Government of any party in this country) to get basic state things like collecting taxes right. Why on earth would I want to let them within a million miles of the railways again?

That, and what's the first thing that happens if Labour renationalises the railways? They'll freeze the fares to appease angry commuters. And who are the angry commuters? Disproportionately, they're wealthy or comfortably-off workers, and disproportionately they're concentrated in the South-East of England.

Ergo, bringing the railways back into public ownership = yet more sweeties for the richest part of the country, which I thought was the sort of thing we were meant to be trying to get away from.

And then, going forward, either the trains are starved of investment because most Government spending increases are set aside for the NHS and pensions, or if it does happen it therefore comes increasingly from general taxation rather than from fare revenues. Better trains for comfortably-off commuters would end up coming out of everybody's income, including that of a great many poor people and those in rural areas who may seldom (if ever) travel by train, but will get to watch more of their money being spent so that the aforementioned commuters may enjoy the privilege of an improved railway without having to cough up more for their tickets.

Finite resources would be better spent on bus services, which are dying on their wheels in most of the country outside of London.

But very typical of Corbyn. Look at free school meals, free university tuition and spending on what would have been middle class housing.

That's why he's popular.

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

_Anazina_ said:

You are assuming that we’d recreate BR, which there is no good reason to do. Other countries manage perfectly well with their railways in the public sector - why are we so down on our own abilities? It’s embarrassing

Because our record of public ownership has been frankly atrocious. I don't trust the Government (any Government of any party in this country) to get basic state things like collecting taxes right. Why on earth would I want to let them within a million miles of the railways again?

That, and what's the first thing that happens if Labour renationalises the railways? They'll freeze the fares to appease angry commuters. And who are the angry commuters? Disproportionately, they're wealthy or comfortably-off workers, and disproportionately they're concentrated in the South-East of England.

Ergo, bringing the railways back into public ownership = yet more sweeties for the richest part of the country, which I thought was the sort of thing we were meant to be trying to get away from.

And then, going forward, either the trains are starved of investment because most Government spending increases are set aside for the NHS and pensions, or if it does happen it therefore comes increasingly from general taxation rather than from fare revenues. Better trains for comfortably-off commuters would end up coming out of everybody's income, including that of a great many poor people and those in rural areas who may seldom (if ever) travel by train, but will get to watch more of their money being spent so that the aforementioned commuters may enjoy the privilege of an improved railway without having to cough up more for their tickets.

Finite resources would be better spent on bus services, which are dying on their wheels in most of the country outside of London.

Not that I have strong views on it but most bus services are part of the welfare state. Except in the major cities.

I rarely see anyone older than a teenager on them until they reach retirement age, when they get it for free.

The Spectator floats the idea of holding an Irish unification referendum to solve the border issue.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/a-referendum-on-irish-unity-might-be-the-best-way-to-solve-the-brexit-border-issue/

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

_Anazina_ said:

You are assuming that we’d recreate BR, which there is no good reason to do. Other countries manage perfectly well with their railways in the public sector - why are we so down on our own abilities? It’s embarrassing

Because our record of public ownership has been frankly atrocious. I don't trust the Government (any Government of any party in this country) to get basic state things like collecting taxes right. Why on earth would I want to let them within a million miles of the railways again?

That, and what's the first thing that happens if Labour renationalises the railways? They'll freeze the fares to appease angry commuters. And who are the angry commuters? Disproportionately, they're wealthy or comfortably-off workers, and disproportionately they're concentrated in the South-East of England.

Ergo, bringing the railways back into public ownership = yet more sweeties for the richest part of the country, which I thought was the sort of thing we were meant to be trying to get away from.

And then, going forward, either the trains are starved of investment because most Government spending increases are set aside for the NHS and pensions, or if it does happen it therefore comes increasingly from general taxation rather than from fare revenues. Better trains for comfortably-off commuters would end up coming out of everybody's income, including that of a great many poor people and those in rural areas who may seldom (if ever) travel by train, but will get to watch more of their money being spent so that the aforementioned commuters may enjoy the privilege of an improved railway without having to cough up more for their tickets.

Finite resources would be better spent on bus services, which are dying on their wheels in most of the country outside of London.

Let the failing parts of the country rot. They voted to sabotage the successful bits through Brexit. Let them figure out a way to recover that doesn’t involve sponging off the bits of the country that they hate.

Oh god, your id has returned. Take a xanax.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47055499

If there’s any kind of social compact, which I doubt, it requires society’s losers not actively to impede society’s dynamos. To do so and then to bleat that the money is not flowing enough is a bit much for me.

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Given that net

Supply chains will adjust much faster than predicted, and government will be united in measures to reduce unnecessary friction. Companies already have a lot of plans in place, what’s causing the immediate problems is the uncertainty of which plan to implement.

The problem with that - and all other forecasts - is that they continue to rely on the UK consumer spending more than 100% of his or her income.

In the 2007-2008 recession, the government was able to compensate by dramatically lowering the tax burden, and interest rates, so that consumers in jobs effectively got big payrises. They spent this money, and therefore aggregate demand (in the UK) recovered strongly.

But things are a bit different now. Firstly, the net foreign investment position of the UK was positive a decade ago. Indeed, it was better than France, and Germany. Now, we're negative and getting worse. Secondly, government debt to GDP was about 40% then. It's now 90%, give or take. Thirdly, interest rates are still close to bugger all. Mortgage payments can't be cut much from here.

So, the ability of the government to raise demand through the usual methods isn't there.

The problem the UK economy continues to have is that it is fundamentally unbalanced. This isn't anything to do with Brexit, it's the consequence of Blair, Brown, Darling, and Osborne, who discovered that you could do Keynesianism by the back door by persuading people to spend more than they earned.

The real risk of No Deal Brexit is that it finally kicks off the inevitable rebalancing. In the 1990-93 recession, the household savings rate reached 15%. That's 11% above where we are now. To put in context, if we were to see a similar level of swing, it would be the same as Spain had during the Eurozone crisis. Now, I don't think it'll be that bad. But I think people are so fixated on Brexit, they forget that Britain doesn't currently pay its way. And that - one way or another - will revert.

British High Streets will look even more desolate if we ever do start living within our means.

I'm curious as to what French and German high streets look like given that retail sales are falling there.

I'm more familiar with Italy than France or Germany, but my impression is that the overheads in running a shop are less there (not least because many are family owned rather than rented), the culture of personal contact through shopping persists, and the concept of shopping online especially for things like groceries is still in its infancy. Which isn't to say that where we lead, they wont follow, but it will be the younger generation that leads the change, unlike the UK where many middle aged folk already do most of their shopping online.

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of course, in the long run the economy's not going to get fixed whilst such a large percentage of the national wealth is locked up in housing. There's no incentive for most of us, other than the very well-off, to invest in business through shares when property offers such fat guaranteed returns (and when, for many people, being forced to take out a colossal mortgage means there's not much left for anything but day-to-day expenses for the rest of their working lives.)

(Edit: Actually, I think the rotten property market may even be the main reason why so many people still live beyond their means. When mortgages or rents are so large that you can't save very much, then the only way you may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

How low can it go?

Who can say? The financial markets are a mysterious beast to the uninitiated (and often, it seems, to most of the initiated as well.) The only constant is that, whenever currencies or shares move up or down, somebody who's clever, lucky or both is making a quick fortune.

For all I know the pound might not move very much at all. It seems to have stabilised despite the increasingly funereal mood music emanating from the Brexit negotiations.

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of course, in the long run the economy's not going to get fixed whilst such a large percentage of the national wealth is locked up in housing. There's no incentive for most of us, other than the very well-off, to invest in business through shares when property offers such fat guaranteed returns (and when, for many people, being forced to take out a colossal mortgage means there's not much left for anything but day-to-day expenses for the rest of their working lives.)

(Edit: Actually, I think the rotten property market may even be the main reason why so many people still live beyond their means. When mortgages or rents are so large that you can't save very much, then the only way you may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

How low can it go?

Who can say? The financial markets are a mysterious beast to the uninitiated (and often, it seems, to most of the initiated as well.) The only constant is that, whenever currencies or shares move up or down, somebody who's clever, lucky or both is making a quick fortune.

For all I know the pound might not move very much at all. It seems to have stabilised despite the increasingly funereal mood music emanating from the Brexit negotiations.

I made a nice profit on betting the £ as it rose towards the last Brexit vote in the Commons. Fortunately I took a big chunk of profit before the debate, since the £ has sunk back since. But I still believe the opportunity is on the upside, since any sort of outcome resolves the uncertainty and anything other than no deal exit (which I don't believe any PM would ever risk) should produce a significant upward bounce in £/$ and £/€.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Wigeon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Wigeon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Wigeon said:

OldKingCole said:

Wigeon said:

Hello, first post. A refugee from Order-Order. The site is a joke, too many weirdos and nasty people abound.

Welcome. I hope we've less weirdos and nasties.

Thank you OKC. Read this blog for ages and decided, to be honest, far more interesting and sociable. The language on OrderOrder is disgraceful and I consider myself a man of the world.

Welcome to PB - It is virtually my first place for news these days. And such varied opinions

Cheers Big G. Where about in North Wales, I know it well, at least every inch of the A55

Llandudno, the Queen of Welsh resorts

I admire it every time i go sea fishing on Anglesey.

I hope you find time to visit the town one day.

Was there last year, picking up one of my grandsons who's car broke down and, year before, visiting the cinema at the junction

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Given that net trade in goods with the EU is around 8% of GDP, if I were to take a guess I’d say something like 0.5% off in Q2 (-25% by value of trade in goods with the EU), maybe down to a total of 1% by the end of the year before recovering early in 2020. There will be a technical recession, but the whole of Europe is about to get one.

Supply chains will adjust much faster than predicted, and government will be united in measures to reduce unnecessary friction. Companies already have a lot of plans in place, what’s causing the immediate problems is the uncertainty of which plan to implement.

The problem , I don't think it'll be that bad. But I think people are so fixated on Brexit, they forget that Britain doesn't currently pay its way. And that - one way or another - will revert.

British High Streets will look even more desolate if we ever do start living within our means.

I'm curious as to what French and German high streets look like given that retail sales are falling there.

Germany is somewhat resistant to internet shopping, so the German high street is doing OK (even if this is unsustainable and possibly inefficient in the long term)

Provincial France, by contrast, is suffering badly (this may be more to do with labour laws than e-commerce). The rundown French towns I visited on my recent trip to Cognac/Bordeaux were as bleak and boarded up as anywhere in Wales or Lancashire.

I noticed the same in Normandy.

asjohnstone said:

williamglenn said:

The Spectator floats the idea of holding an Irish unification referendum to solve the border issue.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/a-referendum-on-irish-unity-might-be-the-best-way-to-solve-the-brexit-border-issue/

Why the Irish don't abandon their failed republic and restore the queen of Ireland to her throne is beyond me, it'd solve so many problems

The mystery to me is why we think there is any benefit whatsoever from holding onto the six counties.

IanB2 said:

I'm more familiar with Italy than France or Germany, but my impression is that the overheads in running a shop are less there (not least because many are family owned rather than rented), the culture of personal contact through shopping persists, and the concept of shopping online especially for things like groceries is still in its infancy. Which isn't to say that where we lead, they wont follow, but it will be the younger generation that leads the change, unlike the UK where many middle aged folk already do most of their shopping online.

I think our problem is a combination of the high cost of rented retail space; landlords holding onto empty retail properties waiting for new tenants who are probably never going to come; lack of funds, imagination or both on the part of local authorities in redeveloping clapped out retail areas; and, of course, the low cost and convenience of online shopping (and banking.) I also seem to recall reading somewhere that we're close to the tipping point, in urban centres at least, where ordering good quality takeaway food will be cheaper (as well as easier for time-constrained or plain lazy households) than cooking your own meals from scratch, which isn't going to help shops much either. I suspect that the nexus of home delivery and click-and-collect apps, allied to so-called dark kitchens, is behind that one.

Clearly physical retail isn't going to decline to zero, especially in large centres and better-off and/or touristy areas, but the contraction probably has some distance left to go yet.

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

I'm more familiar with Italy than France or Germany, but my impression is that the overheads in running a shop are less there (not least because many are family owned rather than rented), the culture of personal contact through shopping persists, and the concept of shopping online especially for things like groceries is still in its infancy. Which isn't to say that where we lead, they wont follow, but it will be the younger generation that leads the change, unlike the UK where many middle aged folk already do most of their shopping online.

I think our problem is a combination of the high cost of rented retail space; landlords holding onto empty retail properties waiting for new tenants who are probably never going to come; lack of funds, imagination or both on the part of local authorities in redeveloping clapped out retail areas; and, of course, the low cost and convenience of online shopping (and banking.) I also seem to recall reading somewhere that we're close to the tipping point, in urban centres at least, where ordering good quality takeaway food will be cheaper (as well as easier for time-constrained or plain lazy households) than cooking your own meals from scratch, which isn't going to help shops much either. I suspect that the nexus of home delivery and click-and-collect apps, allied to so-called dark kitchens, is behind that one.

Clearly physical retail isn't going to decline to zero, especially in large centres and better-off and/or touristy areas, but the contraction probably has some distance left to go yet.

Town centres are destined either to become entirely residential, as have most of our villages which in bygone years contained post offices, butchers, greengrocers and the like, or reinvent themselves as meeting places with a primary focus on cafes, restaurants and other spaces for social meeting and service provision, with some ancillary retail on the side. Most councils currently are struggling with working out which of their towns are heading for either destination.

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

That's for the PERFECT answer. The model that got 8 out of 8.

And do you know what's frightening?

That's still not the most epic fuck up from the new exams. Amanda Spielmann buggering up the marking criteria because she's so dumb she can't count to nine still takes first.

Good night.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all the defeats and our eventual surrender.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

That's for the PERFECT answer. The model that got 8 out of 8.

And do you know what's frightening?

That's still not the most epic fuck up from the new exams. Amanda Spielmann buggering up the marking criteria because she's so dumb she can't count to nine still takes first.

Good night.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all t he defeats and our eventual surrender.

Actually that last sentence is barely a sentence, is it? It doesn’t even make sense.

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

The Spectator floats the idea of holding an Irish unification referendum to solve the border issue.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/a-referendum-on-irish-unity-might-be-the-best-way-to-solve-the-brexit-border-issue/

Sounds an excellent idea. It would certainly stop the DUP in their tracks. Given that it is set out as an option in the GFA, would it need Parliamentary approval or could May just call one in conjunction with the Irish Government?

Looking forward to her explaining why only the citizens of NI get to vote on the proposed outcome, now that it has become clearer.

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

The Spectator floats the idea of holding an Irish unification referendum to solve the border issue.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/a-referendum-on-irish-unity-might-be-the-best-way-to-solve-the-brexit-border-issue/

Sounds an excellent idea. It would certainly stop the DUP in their tracks. Given that it is set out as an option in the GFA, would it need Parliamentary approval or could May just call one in conjunction with the Irish Government?

Looking forward to her explaining why only the citizens of NI get to vote on the proposed outcome, now that it has become clearer.

They wouldn't be voting on that. They wold be voting on reunification as set out in the GFA. I am actually surprised it hasn't already been done to be honest.

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of course, in the long run the economy's not going to get fixed whilst such a large percentage of the national wealth is locked up in housing. There's no incentive for most of us, other than the very well-off, to invest in business through shares when property offers such fat guaranteed returns (and when, for many people, being forced to take out a colossal mortgage means there's not much left for anything but day-to-day expenses for the rest of their working lives.)

(Edit: Actually, I think the rotten property market may even be the main reason why so many people still live beyond their means. When mortgages or rents are so large that you can't save very much, then the only way you may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

How low can it go?

Who can say? The financial markets are a mysterious beast to the uninitiated (and often, it seems, to most of the initiated as well.) The only constant is that, whenever currencies or shares move up or down, somebody who's clever, lucky or both is making a quick fortune.

For all I know the pound might not move very much at all. It seems to have stabilised despite the increasingly funereal mood music emanating from the Brexit negotiations.

I made a nice profit on betting the £ as it rose towards the last Brexit vote in the Commons. Fortunately I took a big chunk of profit before the debate, since the £ has sunk back since. But I still believe the opportunity is on the upside, since any sort of outcome resolves the uncertainty and anything other than no deal exit (which I don't believe any PM would ever risk) should produce a significant upward bounce in £/$ and £/€.

I am not putting my hard earned on it but I do agree with this. I think everything short of a nuclear winter is priced into Sterling at the moment and there is a lot of upside out of a mere disaster.

DavidL said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

That's for the PERFECT answer. The model that got 8 out of 8.

And do you know what's frightening?

That's still not the most epic fuck up from the new exams. Amanda Spielmann buggering up the marking criteria because she's so dumb she can't count to nine still takes first.

Good night.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all t he defeats and our eventual surrender.

Actually that last sentence is barely a sentence, is it? It doesn’t even make sense.

I wouldn't worry about making sense. It is the default position for all our mps

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Given that net trade in goods with the EU is around 8% of GDP, if I were to take a guess I’d say something like 0.5% off in Q2 (-25% by value of trade in goods with the EU), maybe down to a total of 1% by the end of the year before recovering early in 2020. There will be a technical recession, but the whole of Europe is about to get one.

Supply chains will adjust much faster than predicted, and government will be united in measures to reduce unnecessary friction. Companies already have a lot of plans in place, what’s causing the immediate problems is the uncertainty of which plan to implement.

The problem , I don't think it'll be that bad. But I think people are so fixated on Brexit, they forget that Britain doesn't currently pay its way. And that - one way or another - will revert.

British High Streets will look even more desolate if we ever do start living within our means.

I'm curious as to what French and German high streets look like given that retail sales are falling there.

Germany is somewhat resistant to internet shopping, so the German high street is doing OK (even if this is unsustainable and possibly inefficient in the long term)

Provincial France, by contrast, is suffering badly (this may be more to do with labour laws than e-commerce). The rundown French towns I visited on my recent trip to Cognac/Bordeaux were as bleak and boarded up as anywhere in Wales or Lancashire.

And doubtless a factor in the French protests.

But if France is suffering in the pretty tourist area then the likes of Picardy and Lorraine much be in a bad way.

Cognac and Bordeaux are very definitely NOT pretty tourist areas (though Bordeaux is a handsome city). They are flat, boring, grey and tedious, and, once you get there, you realise that the production of cognac and Bordeaux wine is an industry like any other. That is to say: when you look out at the endless vineyards along the Garonne you are looking out at an essentially utilitarian and industrial landscape, like the Welsh coalfields or modern Guangdong, only with the odd charming chateau amongst the grittiness.

Indeed I recommend a tour of Bordeaux to strip away any remaining delusions about the unique fanciness of French wine. They churn it out in tidal waves, from huge concrete warehouses, with ruthlessly clever use of branding to make it seem unusually posh and desirable.

Although the Charente is a delightful river.

CD13 said:

Has anyone asked the Republic how keen they are on unification?

I know some of my relatives who have reservations.

One can well imagine that it would be tough on them. In a united Ireland the North would constitute nearly 30% of the country, it's relatively really quite poor, and paying for its upkeep would be, proportionately, a vastly greater burden to southern taxpayers than it presently is to the UK treasury.

That and they'd inherit a large cohort of very pissed-off Protestants.

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

I'm more familiar with Italy than France or Germany, but my impression is that the overheads in running a shop are less there (not least because many are family owned rather than rented), the culture of personal contact through shopping persists, and the concept of shopping online especially for things like groceries is still in its infancy. Which isn't to say that where we lead, they wont follow, but it will be the younger generation that leads the change, unlike the UK where many middle aged folk already do most of their shopping online.

I think our problem is a combination of the high cost of rented retail space; landlords holding onto empty retail properties waiting for new tenants who are probably never going to come; lack of funds, imagination or both on the part of local authorities in redeveloping clapped out retail areas; and, of course, the low cost and convenience of online shopping (and banking.) I also seem to recall reading somewhere that we're close to the tipping point, in urban centres at least, where ordering good quality takeaway food will be cheaper (as well as easier for time-constrained or plain lazy households) than cooking your own meals from scratch, which isn't going to help shops much either. I suspect that the nexus of home delivery and click-and-collect apps, allied to so-called dark kitchens, is behind that one.

Clearly physical retail isn't going to decline to zero, especially in large centres and better-off and/or touristy areas, but the contraction probably has some distance left to go yet.

Town centres are destined either to become entirely residential, as have most of our villages which in bygone years contained post offices, butchers, greengrocers and the like, or reinvent themselves as meeting places with a primary focus on cafes, restaurants and other spaces for social meeting and service provision, with some ancillary retail on the side. Most councils currently are struggling with working out which of their towns are heading for either destination.

It will be the latter.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

That's for the PERFECT answer. The model that got 8 out of 8.

And do you know what's frightening?

That's still not the most epic fuck up from the new exams. Amanda Spielmann buggering up the marking criteria because she's so dumb she can't count to nine still takes first.

Good night.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all the defeats and our eventual surrender.

It should be "nearly lasted" in English if I am not mistaken?

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of course, in the long run the economy's not going to get fixed whilst such a large percentage of the national wealth is locked up in housing. There's no incentive for most of us, other than the very well-off, to invest in business through shares when property offers such fat guaranteed returns (and when, for many people, being forced to take out a colossal mortgage means there's not much left for anything but day-to-day expenses for the rest of their working lives.)

(Edit: Actually, I think the rotten property market may even be the main reason why so many people still live beyond their means. When mortgages or rents are so large that you can't save very much, then the only way you may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

How low can it go?

Who can say? The financial markets are a mysterious beast to the uninitiated (and often, it seems, to most of the initiated as well.) The only constant is that, whenever currencies or shares move up or down, somebody who's clever, lucky or both is making a quick fortune.

For all I know the pound might not move very much at all. It seems to have stabilised despite the increasingly funereal mood music emanating from the Brexit negotiations.

I made a nice profit on betting the £ as it rose towards the last Brexit vote in the Commons. Fortunately I took a big chunk of profit before the debate, since the £ has sunk back since. But I still believe the opportunity is on the upside, since any sort of outcome resolves the uncertainty and anything other than no deal exit (which I don't believe any PM would ever risk) should produce a significant upward bounce in £/$ and £/€.

I am not putting my hard earned on it but I do agree with this. I think everything short of a nuclear winter is priced into Sterling at the moment and there is a lot of upside out of a mere disaster.

Perhaps everything except the UK living within its means.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

That's for the PERFECT answer. The model that got 8 out of 8.

And do you know what's frightening?

That's still not the most epic fuck up from the new exams. Amanda Spielmann buggering up the marking criteria because she's so dumb she can't count to nine still takes first.

Good night.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all the defeats and our eventual surrender.

Not really. I am afraid ydoethur is showing he is a teacher first and a historian second. Most historians of the period recognise that Harold was indeed a great commander. Faced with an almost impossible situation of fighting off two invasions in succession - one against an army which had already beaten part of his army before he arrived - he did far better than many might have expected. That he lost was not down to his being a poor commander but down to circumstances largely beyond his control. It would be fair to say he was a poor diplomat perhaps but certainly not a poor commander.

I note that Ladbrokes has finally ended their long run as the longest odds on Trump being the GOP Nominee for 2020. Was 1.5, now 1.4 (Skybet are 1.44).

Betfair is down from 1.6-1.65 last week to 1.55 or so now.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

That's for the PERFECT answer. The model that got 8 out of 8.

And do you know what's frightening?

That's still not the most epic fuck up from the new exams. Amanda Spielmann buggering up the marking criteria because she's so dumb she can't count to nine still takes first.

Good night.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all the defeats and our eventual surrender.

Not really. I am afraid ydoethur is showing he is a teacher first and a historian second. Most historians of the period recognise that Harold was indeed a great commander. Faced with an almost impossible situation of fighting off two invasions in succession - one against an army which had already beaten part of his army before he arrived - he did far better than many might have expected. That he lost was not down to his being a poor commander but down to circumstances largely beyond his control. It would be fair to say he was a poor diplomat perhaps but certainly not a poor commander.

Oh come on. He was facing an army that had literally burnt its boats, that was in a hostile country, that basically had one shot to win. They may have got lucky with the shot in the eye but the fact is that a more cautious approach was guaranteed to win and Harold blew it. He needed to be a Varrus and William would have been in deep doodoo.

Casino_Royale said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

I'm more familiar with Italy than France or Germany, but my impression is that the overheads in running a shop are less there (not least because many are family owned rather than rented), the culture of personal contact through shopping persists, and the concept of shopping online especially for things like groceries is still in its infancy. Which isn't to say that where we lead, they wont follow, but it will be the younger generation that leads the change, unlike the UK where many middle aged folk already do most of their shopping online.

I think our problem is a combination of the high cost of rented retail space; landlords holding onto empty retail properties waiting for new tenants who are probably never going to come; lack of funds, imagination or both on the part of local authorities in redeveloping clapped out retail areas; and, of course, the low cost and convenience of online shopping (and banking.) I also seem to recall reading somewhere that we're close to the tipping point, in urban centres at least, where ordering good quality takeaway food will be cheaper (as well as easier for time-constrained or plain lazy households) than cooking your own meals from scratch, which isn't going to help shops much either. I suspect that the nexus of home delivery and click-and-collect apps, allied to so-called dark kitchens, is behind that one.

Clearly physical retail isn't going to decline to zero, especially in large centres and better-off and/or touristy areas, but the contraction probably has some distance left to go yet.

Town centres are destined either to become entirely residential, as have most of our villages which in bygone years contained post offices, butchers, greengrocers and the like, or reinvent themselves as meeting places with a primary focus on cafes, restaurants and other spaces for social meeting and service provision, with some ancillary retail on the side. Most councils currently are struggling with working out which of their towns are heading for either destination.

It will be the latter.

I think the more honest answer is that many, but not all, town centres have the potential to reinvent themselves in such a way, but that there will be a fair few that end up as entirely residential with no need for any commercial high street activity at all, given that there is somewhere more successful within easy driving distance. It is already the case that in many town centres the most valuable use for even high street properties is as conversion to residential, and it is only local planning regulations that hold back the tide.

GIN1138 said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

"Inflation in Venezuela will hit 10m per cent this year"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/inflation-venezuela-will-hit-ten-million-per-cent-year-speculators/

Isn't that really at the point where you basically need to scrap your currency and start again?

That's what I was thinking.

AndyJS said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Given that net trade in goods with the EU is around 8% of GDP, if I were to take a guess I’d say something like 0.5% off in Q2 (-25% by value of trade in goods with the EU), maybe down to a total of 1% by the end of the year before recovering early in 2020. There will be a technical recession, but the whole of Europe is about to get one.

Supply chains will adjust much faster than predicted, and government will be united in measures to reduce unnecessary friction. Companies already have a lot of plans in place, what’s causing the immediate problems is the uncertainty of which plan to implement.

The problem with that - and all other forecasts - is that they continue to rely on the UK consumer spending more than 100% of his or her income.

In the 2007-2008 recession, the government was able to compensate by dramatically lowering the tax burden, and interest rates, so that consumers in jobs effectively got big payrises. They spent this money, and therefore aggregate demand (in the UK) recovered strongly.

But things are a bit different now. Firstly, the net foreign investment position of the UK was positive a decade ago. Indeed, it was better than France, and Germany. Now, we're negative and getting worse. Secondly, government debt to GDP was about 40% then. It's now 90%, give or take. Thirdly, interest rates are still close to bugger all. Mortgage payments can't be cut much from here.

So, the ability of the government to raise demand through the usual methods isn't there.

The problem the UK economy continues to have is that it is fundamentally unbalanced. This isn't anything to do with Brexit, it's the consequence of Blair, Brown, Darling, and Osborne, who discovered that you could do Keynesianism by the back door by persuading people to spend more than they earned.

The real risk of No Deal Brexit is that it finally kicks off the inevitable rebalancing. In the 1990-93 recession, the household savings rate reached 15%. That's 11% above where we are now. To put in context, if we were to see a similar level of swing, it would be the same as Spain had during the Eurozone crisis. Now, I don't think it'll be that bad. But I think people are so fixated on Brexit, they forget that Britain doesn't currently pay its way. And that - one way or another - will revert.

British High Streets will look even more desolate if we ever do start living within our means.

I'm curious as to what French and German high streets look like given that retail sales are falling there.

Surely it's a good thing if we start living within our means.

Sadly the way politics works, more people would vote for their children living within their means.

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

That's for the PERFECT answer. The model that got 8 out of 8.

And do you know what's frightening?

That's still not the most epic fuck up from the new exams. Amanda Spielmann buggering up the marking criteria because she's so dumb she can't count to nine still takes first.

Good night.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all the defeats and our eventual surrender.

Not really. I am afraid ydoethur is showing he is a teacher first and a historian second. Most historians of the period recognise that Harold was indeed a great commander. Faced with an almost impossible situation of fighting off two invasions in succession - one against an army which had already beaten part of his army before he arrived - he did far better than many might have expected. That he lost was not down to his being a poor commander but down to circumstances largely beyond his control. It would be fair to say he was a poor diplomat perhaps but certainly not a poor commander.

Oh come on. He was facing an army that had literally burnt its boats, that was in a hostile country, that basically had one shot to win. They may have got lucky with the shot in the eye but the fact is that a more cautious approach was guaranteed to win and Harold blew it. He needed to be a Varrus and William would have been in deep doodoo.

Do you mean Fabius who wore down Hannibal ?

Or Varro who lost at Cannae ?

Varrus was the Roman who lost Germany for Augustus.

Casino_Royale said:

MarqueeMark said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Given that net trade in goods with the EU is around 8% of GDP, if I were to take a guess I’d say something like 0.5% off in Q2 (-25% by value of trade in goods with the EU), maybe down to a total of 1% by the end of the year before recovering early in 2020. There will be a technical recession, but the whole of Europe is about to get one.

Supply chains will adjust much faster than predicted, and government will be united in measures to reduce unnecessary friction. Companies already have a lot of plans in place, what’s causing the immediate problems is the uncertainty of which plan to implement.

The problem , I don't think it'll be that bad. But I think people are so fixated on Brexit, they forget that Britain doesn't currently pay its way. And that - one way or another - will revert.

British High Streets will look even more desolate if we ever do start living within our means.

I'm curious as to what French and German high streets look like given that retail sales are falling there.

Germany is somewhat resistant to internet shopping, so the German high street is doing OK (even if this is unsustainable and possibly inefficient in the long term)

Provincial France, by contrast, is suffering badly (this may be more to do with labour laws than e-commerce). The rundown French towns I visited on my recent trip to Cognac/Bordeaux were as bleak and boarded up as anywhere in Wales or Lancashire.

I noticed the same in Normandy.

Normandy is utterly moribund. It's very sad.

Le Touquet (although not in Normandy) was very different but it's also very touristy.

Michel Houellebecq new novel is partly about Normandy and its decline/moribundness.

Not translated until the autumn.

Annoying.

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

That's for the PERFECT answer. The model that got 8 out of 8.

And do you know what's frightening?

That's still not the most epic fuck up from the new exams. Amanda Spielmann buggering up the marking criteria because she's so dumb she can't count to nine still takes first.

Good night.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all the defeats and our eventual surrender.

Not really. I am afraid ydoethur is showing he is a teacher first and a historian second. Most historians of the period recognise that Harold was indeed a great commander. Faced with an almost impossible situation of fighting off two invasions in succession - one against an army which had already beaten part of his army before he arrived - he did far better than many might have expected. That he lost was not down to his being a poor commander but down to circumstances largely beyond his control. It would be fair to say he was a poor diplomat perhaps but certainly not a poor commander.

Oh come on. He was facing an army that had literally burnt its boats, that was in a hostile country, that basically had one shot to win. They may have got lucky with the shot in the eye but the fact is that a more cautious approach was guaranteed to win and Harold blew it. He needed to be a Varrus and William would have been in deep doodoo.

You shouldn't be believing the myths I am afraid. I would suggest to start with reading 'The Year of Three Battles' by Frank McLynn. It is also worth remembering that Harold was regarded as the foremost military commander of his age (or at least jointly held that honour with Harold Hardrada who he beat at Stamford Bridge) having fought various campaigns for Edward the Confessor as well as fighting for William in Normandy and the Holy Roman Emperor in Flanders.