This has now become like the Falklands War. Days before the Armada arrives, a reasonable solution might be found. But Bonkers Boris is on a war footing. Their eyes are alight. They will try to crash us out. They will try to sink any Belgranos in the water. Dominic Cummings will adore bringing the whole edifice crashing down. It's what he lives for: the smoke in the rubble is the air he breathes.
If Britain wins, then the tories will land the biggest majority since Thatcher.
But this isn't 1982. The EU is not an 'enemy,' despite what Bonkers Boris believes and they're not a bunch of amateurish Argentinians who would rather be back home.
I thought tired war-time cliches were meant to be the preserve of Leavers?
Brexit is not the Falklands. It is Iraq, Suez, the fall of Singapore and the Charge of the Light Brigade. It is the Jonestown Massacre, the Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme, and Gallipoli.
It's the Rape of Nanking, the Burning of Warsaw, and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
OTT.
On the other hand, it certainly ain’t Agincourt, Blenheim, or the defeat of the Spanish Armada.
We are only arguing over the magnitude of failure.
It's Caligula's war against Neptune, if Neptune had won.
He must want to remain in the EU, splitting the Brexit vote is great news for the Lib Dems in the south of England in particular.
I admit, I thought Nigel would be happy to pass on the baton to Boris, wind up TPB and quietly retire. Clearly not. I wonder if the appointment of Cummings was wise after all. He and Nigel loathe each other, and Nigel looks to be re-energized into destroying the Tories. This is just like the arcane splits within the British far left during the 1960s and 70s and, as with those, probably none of the factions will prevail.
Where would the influence be then? Nige needs the Tories to lose B+R to keep them fearful, and with their feet to the fire.
UKIP was a protest movement; TBP is a serious attempt at assuming power. Nigel has looked at his friend Trump and thought: if he can do it why not me? This is gone far beyond Brexit now. Nigel want to be PM.
Any Brexiteers on here claiming this is irrelevant / doesn't matter / won't affect people are just illustrating how far up their own colons they have their heads.
This really, really, matters to a LOT of British people, especially at this time of year.
Treat this lightly at your peril.
Why the capitals.
You may well be right about the currency. My wife and I are going on a 24 day cruise to Canada and the US in September and are only to pleased we paid the cruise in full, the tips and all the excursions in June when the pound was circa 1.30. Obviously the relative small amount of extra spending in Canada and US dollars will be a little higher but it is not too much to be bothered about.
Also may holidays will have been booked when the exchange rates were higher and many all inclusive
It may have a negative effect but as we know those who want to just get it over and leave may well say 'so what'
Polls and trends over the coming weeks will be very interesting
So Sky News has a headline about the pound being a bit lower than it was yesterday. The same Sky News that has a lower reach according to Barb than Sky Witness, Spike and Pick TV. I'm sure Boris is trembling at the thought of Adam Boulton angrily proclaiming Boris' honeymoon over to his 20,000 viewers!
The honeymoon will of course end, probably at the by-election as has been stated but he's had a brilliant week so far.
The plummeting pound is headlining on the BBC too. Forget the guff about 'being good for exporters'. The public understands what it's truly indicative of: an economy nearing the rocks.
He must want to remain in the EU, splitting the Brexit vote is great news for the Lib Dems in the south of England in particular.
I admit, I thought Nigel would be happy to pass on the baton to Boris, wind up TPB and quietly retire. Clearly not. I wonder if the appointment of Cummings was wise after all. He and Nigel loathe each other, and Nigel looks to be re-energized into destroying the Tories. This is just like the arcane splits within the British far left during the 1960s and 70s and, as with those, probably none of the factions will prevail.
Where would the influence be then? Nige needs the Tories to lose B+R to keep them fearful, and with their feet to the fire.
Nige will have learned his lesson from taking a back seat after the referendum, and leaving UKIP to choose an ever more alarming series of strategically-shaved monkeys in suits to run itself into the ground, while Brexit was clearly not as nailed-on as he thought on June 24 2016.
He'll be there until there's a hard-enough Brexit to make whatever millions he plans to. If he stays active beyond Brexit, it's either not hard enough or he does actually have a longer-term vision of being in power.
My guess is he'd sooner be in a showbiz shock-jock role like Piers Morgan rather than all that tiresome old running a country shizz.
He must want to remain in the EU, splitting the Brexit vote is great news for the Lib Dems in the south of England in particular.
I admit, I thought Nigel would be happy to pass on the baton to Boris, wind up TPB and quietly retire. Clearly not. I wonder if the appointment of Cummings was wise after all. He and Nigel loathe each other, and Nigel looks to be re-energized into destroying the Tories. This is just like the arcane splits within the British far left during the 1960s and 70s and, as with those, probably none of the factions will prevail.
Where would the influence be then? Nige needs the Tories to lose B+R to keep them fearful, and with their feet to the fire.
UKIP was a protest movement; TBP is a serious attempt at assuming power. Nigel has looked at his friend Trump and thought: if he can do it why not me? This is gone far beyond Brexit now. Nigel want to be PM.
He might not see it as a protest movement, and might *want* to become PM.
But real voters still see it as a protest movement. All great fun to deliver a bloody nose in low turnout Euro elections (precisely as they did via UKIP previously) but not to let loose on the levers of real power. How many times has Farage personally been beaten in Parliamentary elections now - six or seven? Let alone all those lesser Farage acolytes. And straight after the Euro Elections, we had a low turnout by-election in a decidedly Leave area... and they couldn't even get that one.
The plummeting pound is headlining on the BBC too. Forget the guff about 'being good for exporters'. The public understands what it's truly indicative of: an economy nearing the rocks.
When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the public policy disaster that was No Deal Brexit, the guilty and their lies will be revealed in full.
It is absolutely not all the UK's doing. Unless you're saying the EU is some sort of prison that we shouldn't leave, the UK was perfectly entitled to have a referendum and is perfectly entitled to leave and we are free to do what we want without it being held against us.
Cameron gave the EU a chance at reform prior to the referendum and they chose not to reform. Why should we remain tethered to Europe just because they want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to ignore us, not reform but maintain an open border with at least one part of our country? Doesn't work that way.
It takes two to tango.
They have given us a series of choices, each with some good bits and some bad bits. That the leave vote is split with incompatible demands, plus all the political parties seeking to maximise their interest ahead of the national interest is hardly their fault. The backstop that you despise is a UK creation not an EU one. The problems are our parliament has been unable to choose and there is no consensus on why we are leaving, not the EU being inflexible.
The leave vote is not that split, what was split was having Remainers try to implement it while ignoring large parts of why we voted to leave.
If the leave vote is so split, perhaps you can name some prominent Vote Leave campaigners who are objecting to Boris Johnson's method of trying to leave. It seems all the objections are coming from Remainers, and even some Remainers are respecting it.
If the backstop is our creation they'll have no objection to junking it will they?
The leave campaign had three core parts, free trade open global Britain, anti immigration protectionist Britain, Corbynite leftist Britain, they cant all be delivered, we need to choose one if we are to Brexit coherently. None have more than 35% of support across the country.
Michael Gove seemed to think our new PMs stance pretty foolish when he could speak freely in the leadership debate? Is he prominent enough?
There would be no problem from the EU if we asked to remove the backstop and accepted the consequences and that other parts of the agreement would necessarily have to change. They wont remove it from the current agreement as is.
Any Brexiteers on here claiming this is irrelevant / doesn't matter / won't affect people are just illustrating how far up their own colons they have their heads.
This really, really, matters to a LOT of British people, especially at this time of year.
Treat this lightly at your peril.
Absolutely the pound being more competitive is very relevant and matters hugely to all exporters making us more competitive on the global stage.
It might hurt those who are exporting to us, like the Irish, be a shame if that is compounded by their exports being less competitive and facing no deal now wouldn't it?
From memory
Tories win 2015 general election: GBP rises to 1.6 USD Cameron announces referendum date: GBP sinks gradually to 1.45 Referendum day: Farage concedes: GBP rises to hit 1.5 USD momentarily 4am after the result: GBP falls to 1.35 USD After the 2017 conference speech, GBP fall to 1.2 After the Deal is agreed, GBP rise to over 1.3 USD Parliament fails to ratify, May resigns, GBP falls to around 1.24 Boris becomes PM, stabilises briefly at 1.25 USD As No Deal becomes the governing assumption GBP sinks towards 1.2 USD again and may fall lower
Your predicted export boom triggered by a lower pound has not manifested between 2015 and the present, and although I understand the theoretical basis for your prediction, it has not so far actually happened.
An interesting market for B&R would be turnout this Thursday.....I reckon 30% tops given the its the holidays.... despite hard work by LDs I cant see Plaid or the Greens bussing helpers to get the vote out and as for the BXP bus, that came to a sticky end.
It will be much higher than that. At the mid-July 1985 by election held here, turnout was 79.4%.
He must want to remain in the EU, splitting the Brexit vote is great news for the Lib Dems in the south of England in particular.
I admit, I thought Nigel would be happy to pass on the baton to Boris, wind up TPB and quietly retire. Clearly not. I wonder if the appointment of Cummings was wise after all. He and Nigel loathe each other, and Nigel looks to be re-energized into destroying the Tories. This is just like the arcane splits within the British far left during the 1960s and 70s and, as with those, probably none of the factions will prevail.
Where would the influence be then? Nige needs the Tories to lose B+R to keep them fearful, and with their feet to the fire.
UKIP was a protest movement; TBP is a serious attempt at assuming power. Nigel has looked at his friend Trump and thought: if he can do it why not me? This is gone far beyond Brexit now. Nigel want to be PM.
I think you are correct. But it is a big question whether there are enough fools who believe his guff about fixing politics and out-of-touch elites, to win under FPTP.
By way of caution to HYUFD regarding US polling, even the best pollster in America for the time being has no confidence in the accuracy of her primary predictions:
But even Selzer is finding it particularly difficult to get a thorough read this year. “There are too many candidates,” she said. “That’s a lot for likely caucus-goers to comprehend—the nuances of this person versus that person.” Given that few Iowans are firm in their choices at this point, she realized that asking people for their first choice, or even their top two choices, might not reflect the underlying strength of various candidates. So she changed things up. She began asking voters which candidates they were actively considering. “This gave us their footprint,” she said, and helped predict the rise of Warren and Harris after the June debates, in Miami.
When I asked Selzer whether we can know how things will turn out for the Democrats this cycle, she pointed to a Register analysis from earlier this month by Nick Coltrain and Tim Webber, who reported that the candidates are on track to appear at an astonishing three thousand events in Iowa before the February caucuses. “The candidates are going to spend millions of dollars and thousands of events trying to change how we see it right now,” she said. “Anybody who tells you they can look at the field now and know who’s going to get the nomination is kidding themselves.”
Headlines about sterling 'slumping' - not my word but the press - are really bad for a PM at any time but especially the start of the school holidays.
And all linked to the rhetoric about No Deal.
Watch and note how the Boris bouncing balloon is already burst.
Do you have any evidence of that ?
The value of sterling has about zero impact on voting intentions.
It has no effect on the pound in your pocket?
The 1967 Pound in Your Pocket devaluation of the pound had a dramatic effect on the Labour government's poll ratings.
Yes. And given that the betting markets at least still aren't putting No Deal anywhere near evens, if we do leave with No Deal the pound will fall a lot further.
He must want to remain in the EU, splitting the Brexit vote is great news for the Lib Dems in the south of England in particular.
I admit, I thought Nigel would be happy to pass on the baton to Boris, wind up TPB and quietly retire. Clearly not. I wonder if the appointment of Cummings was wise after all. He and Nigel loathe each other, and Nigel looks to be re-energized into destroying the Tories. This is just like the arcane splits within the British far left during the 1960s and 70s and, as with those, probably none of the factions will prevail.
Where would the influence be then? Nige needs the Tories to lose B+R to keep them fearful, and with their feet to the fire.
UKIP was a protest movement; TBP is a serious attempt at assuming power. Nigel has looked at his friend Trump and thought: if he can do it why not me? This is gone far beyond Brexit now. Nigel want to be PM.
Well if he does, he's going about it pretty darn cackhandedly.
TBP's poll ratings are just A THIRD of where they were a couple of days before the Euros. He's lost Peterborough just days after walking the Euros there - and spaffed management time on a Quixotic attack on the by-election.
He's allowed a farcical trial in Gloucester of standing for locals: getting as low a vote share in a solid Leave town as he's getting in national opinions.
And in B&R the evidence right now is that he's taken enough votes from the Tories to ease the LibDems in - without any benefit to himself.
Is he actually Jo Swinson in drag? Because he's done more for the LibDems than any other politician on record In fact: has anyone ever seen them both at the same time?
Maybe Boris fronting up a 'walk away no deal ' commitment has served to confirm the absolute polarisation between leave and remain
I supported TM deal all along as it was a compromise and we would have left now with a good relationship with the EU for our ongoing trade talks.
I strongly criticize all those mps from each opposing view from not coming together in the interest of the Country
From this point on I think public opinion is going to be very important to both Boris, but also his opponents. If we see Boris and the conservatives receiving public support we can all cry 'they do not know what they are doing' but a no deal disaster will become inevitable
I listened to a report on the early business news from Ireland and in particular their agriculture industry and they are facing utter devastation if we no deal. Indeed across the EU people and communities will be economically wrecked as their markets are lost through tariffs etc
And all this due to idiotic politicians sacrificing jobs and communities both here and in Europe over opposing ideology
It makes you want to weep. And yes if we end with a no deal I resign from the conservative party
This is all the UK's doing - the EU did not tell us to have a referendum. It's an entirely self-inflicted wound, utterly predictable in its outcome to anyone with a basic grasp of politics, economics and human nature.
And to many Europeans whose lives and communities are going to be laid to waste by the stupidity of politicians here and in the EU
No one comes out of this well
I still think the impact on the EU, while possibly significant, will generally be widely-enough spread to make it feel less than it will here. They still have 25 instead of 26 nations in their gang, plus all the external trade deals continuing. We, erm, won't.. the way things are going.
Which is not to deny there will be "many" who *are* impacted more severely if their trade is almost exclusively with Brits - probably not looking so great for hypermarkets in Calais or dairy farmers on the Irish border in the event of a No Deal. But I still think the shock will be more easily born across the EU.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
As you have pointed out before Robert the balance of trade is much more influenced by savings rates than it is by currency movements and our savings rates remain terrible (hence the economy continues to grow). These structural problems in our economy are much, much more important to our future economic growth and standard of living than Brexit will ever be.
UKIP was a protest movement; TBP is a serious attempt at assuming power. Nigel has looked at his friend Trump and thought: if he can do it why not me? This is gone far beyond Brexit now. Nigel want to be PM.
I agree. I think Farage is rooting for more delay and (in his dreams) Ref2.
But as I type this sentence I am uncomfortably aware that I could be succumbing to the very same Conspiracy Theory nonsense that when it takes the form of "Corbyn deep down wants No Deal" I have no truck with whatsoever.
Maybe Boris fronting up a 'walk away no deal ' commitment has served to confirm the absolute polarisation between leave and remain
I supported TM deal all along as it was a compromise and we would have left now with a good relationship with the EU for our ongoing trade talks.
I strongly criticize all those mps from each opposing view from not coming together in the interest of the Country
From this point on I think public opinion is going to be very important to both Boris, but also his opponents. If we see Boris and the conservatives receiving public support we can all cry 'they do not know what they are doing' but a no deal disaster will become inevitable
I listened to a report on the early business news from Ireland and in particular their agriculture industry and they are facing utter devastation if we no deal. Indeed across the EU people and communities will be economically wrecked as their markets are lost through tariffs etc
And all this due to idiotic politicians sacrificing jobs and communities both here and in Europe over opposing ideology
It makes you want to weep. And yes if we end with a no deal I resign from the conservative party
This is all the UK's doing - the EU did not tell us to have a referendum. It's an entirely self-inflicted wound, utterly predictable in its outcome to anyone with a basic grasp of politics, economics and human nature.
And to many Europeans whose lives and communities are going to be laid to waste by the stupidity of politicians here and in the EU
No one comes out of this well
I still think the impact on the EU, while possibly significant, will generally be widely-enough spread to make it feel less than it will here. They still have 25 instead of 26 nations in their gang, plus all the external trade deals continuing. We, erm, won't.. the way things are going.
Which is not to deny there will be "many" who *are* impacted more severely if their trade is almost exclusively with Brits - probably not looking so great for hypermarkets in Calais or dairy farmers on the Irish border in the event of a No Deal. But I still think the shock will be more easily born across the EU.
You can bet that there will be significant EU aid to soften the impact of a no-deal exit.
Politically expedient, and the message is "the UK asked us for a deal on their red lines. We gave them one, then they decided they didn't like it."
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
As you have pointed out before Robert the balance of trade is much more influenced by savings rates than it is by currency movements and our savings rates remain terrible (hence the economy continues to grow). These structural problems in our economy are much, much more important to our future economic growth and standard of living than Brexit will ever be.
How does Brexit not make the situation worse? It is a project of the economically inactive and rentiers which will make life harder for companies and Britains who are working.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
As you have pointed out before Robert the balance of trade is much more influenced by savings rates than it is by currency movements and our savings rates remain terrible (hence the economy continues to grow). These structural problems in our economy are much, much more important to our future economic growth and standard of living than Brexit will ever be.
How does Brexit not make the situation worse? It is a project of the economically inactive and rentiers which will make life harder for companies and Britains who are working.
Brexit will make us free!
Happy, smiling workers will push production to record levels, driven by the sheer joy of liberty and Belief in Britain ...
Headlines about sterling 'slumping' - not my word but the press - are really bad for a PM at any time but especially the start of the school holidays.
And all linked to the rhetoric about No Deal.
Watch and note how the Boris bouncing balloon is already burst.
Do you have any evidence of that ?
The value of sterling has about zero impact on voting intentions.
It has no effect on the pound in your pocket?
The 1967 Pound in Your Pocket devaluation of the pound had a dramatic effect on the Labour government's poll ratings.
Not to mention Black Wednesday, which was also essentially a currency devaluation.
Both of those were active government decisions in fixed-rate mechanisms. I think what can be sold as a market reaction won't be *as* damaging (however much an act of self-harm came before).
And while the two-holidays a year, Mail-reading middle class will tut at more expensive holidays and TVs, there'll be a significant base of JAMs who can't afford either won't see it as a poor trade-off for getting rid of the foreigners (or whatever we're doing). That's not to say they won't be economically affected, but I'm not sure they'll see a direct correlation with exchange rates.
Maybe Boris fronting up a 'walk away no deal ' commitment has served to confirm the absolute polarisation between leave and remain
I supported TM deal all along as it was a compromise and we would have left now with a good relationship with the EU for our ongoing trade talks.
I strongly criticize all those mps from each opposing view from not coming together in the interest of the Country
From this point on I think public opinion is going to be very important to both Boris, but also his opponents. If we see Boris and the conservatives receiving public support we can all cry 'they do not know what they are doing' but a no deal disaster will become inevitable
I listened to a report on the early business news from Ireland and in particular their agriculture industry and they are facing utter devastation if we no deal. Indeed across the EU people and communities will be economically wrecked as their markets are lost through tariffs etc
And all this due to idiotic politicians sacrificing jobs and communities both here and in Europe over opposing ideology
It makes you want to weep. And yes if we end with a no deal I resign from the conservative party
This is all the UK's doing - the EU did not tell us to have a referendum. It's an entirely self-inflicted wound, utterly predictable in its outcome to anyone with a basic grasp of politics, economics and human nature.
And to many Europeans whose lives and communities are going to be laid to waste by the stupidity of politicians here and in the EU
No one comes out of this well
See my point about politics, economics and human nature. The ones seeking to change are the British. The EU agreed a deal based on British red lines. They are reacting entirely as you would expect people to react, if you say to them "we don't like tyou or your club, but we want all the benefits of it without the obligations."
Unsurprisingly the club says "well **** you then".
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
As you have pointed out before Robert the balance of trade is much more influenced by savings rates than it is by currency movements and our savings rates remain terrible (hence the economy continues to grow). These structural problems in our economy are much, much more important to our future economic growth and standard of living than Brexit will ever be.
How does Brexit not make the situation worse? It is a project of the economically inactive and rentiers which will make life harder for companies and Britains who are working.
There's a variety of ways it might not make things worse. So, for example, if we do end up with tariffs on EU goods this will encourage import substitution by making things here. It might make people more cautious and leery of borrowing.
Of course it might also hit confidence at a time when the EZ economy is on the brink itself. But the impacts are likely to be modest. The underlying problem isn't. Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
By way of caution to HYUFD regarding US polling, even the best pollster in America for the time being has no confidence in the accuracy of her primary predictions:
But even Selzer is finding it particularly difficult to get a thorough read this year. “There are too many candidates,” she said. “That’s a lot for likely caucus-goers to comprehend—the nuances of this person versus that person.” Given that few Iowans are firm in their choices at this point, she realized that asking people for their first choice, or even their top two choices, might not reflect the underlying strength of various candidates. So she changed things up. She began asking voters which candidates they were actively considering. “This gave us their footprint,” she said, and helped predict the rise of Warren and Harris after the June debates, in Miami.
When I asked Selzer whether we can know how things will turn out for the Democrats this cycle, she pointed to a Register analysis from earlier this month by Nick Coltrain and Tim Webber, who reported that the candidates are on track to appear at an astonishing three thousand events in Iowa before the February caucuses. “The candidates are going to spend millions of dollars and thousands of events trying to change how we see it right now,” she said. “Anybody who tells you they can look at the field now and know who’s going to get the nomination is kidding themselves.”
There's a new Quinnipiac out, the Harris-Biden pair has widened to a 23 point gap from a 2 point gap last time round. I can guarantee the polls would be being reported very differently (By Politico, Vox, MSNBC, CNN etc) if someone else other than Biden had his polling shares at the moment.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
Headlines about sterling 'slumping' - not my word but the press - are really bad for a PM at any time but especially the start of the school holidays.
And all linked to the rhetoric about No Deal.
Watch and note how the Boris bouncing balloon is already burst.
Do you have any evidence of that ?
The value of sterling has about zero impact on voting intentions.
It has no effect on the pound in your pocket?
The 1967 Pound in Your Pocket devaluation of the pound had a dramatic effect on the Labour government's poll ratings.
Not to mention Black Wednesday, which was also essentially a currency devaluation.
Both of those were active government decisions in fixed-rate mechanisms. I think what can be sold as a market reaction won't be *as* damaging (however much an act of self-harm came before).
Black Wednesday was also market driven. The government decision was just to stop trying to defend a certain level of the pound.
Any Brexiteers on here claiming this is irrelevant / doesn't matter / won't affect people are just illustrating how far up their own colons they have their heads.
This really, really, matters to a LOT of British people, especially at this time of year.
Treat this lightly at your peril.
Absolutely the pound being more competitive is very relevant and matters hugely to all exporters making us more competitive on the global stage.
It might hurt those who are exporting to us, like the Irish, be a shame if that is compounded by their exports being less competitive and facing no deal now wouldn't it?
From memory
Tories win 2015 general election: GBP rises to 1.6 USD Cameron announces referendum date: GBP sinks gradually to 1.45 Referendum day: Farage concedes: GBP rises to hit 1.5 USD momentarily 4am after the result: GBP falls to 1.35 USD After the 2017 conference speech, GBP fall to 1.2 After the Deal is agreed, GBP rise to over 1.3 USD Parliament fails to ratify, May resigns, GBP falls to around 1.24 Boris becomes PM, stabilises briefly at 1.25 USD As No Deal becomes the governing assumption GBP sinks towards 1.2 USD again and may fall lower
Your predicted export boom triggered by a lower pound has not manifested between 2015 and the present, and although I understand the theoretical basis for your prediction, it has not so far actually happened.
The majority of exports come from a very small subset of the UK population of workers. A large number of them work for foreign owned companies who are cautious to invest to take advantage of the opportunity given the political uncertainty. In fact some are divesting such as Honda. At the moment there are not even supportive words to exporters let alone real action. As such we could be in for a large crash in the pound. £1 = $1 is possible.
German exports to the UK were down 22% last month so the adjustment is already underway. Forget buying a Mercedes or Audi you wont be able to afford the service costs.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
At pretty much any time in history, you've been able to say "the British Pound is at its lowest level ever relative to the Swiss Franc".
So, at what point do we just dissolve the entire United Kingdom and apply to become cantons of the Helvetic Republic?
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
If the BoE think it's a problem, they should hike up interest rates.
The most obvious way people will encounter the falling pound between now and October is higher prices in the shops and more expensive holidays. It will not be seen as a benefit. The best Johnson can hope for is that it will not be linked to him. Given how poor an opposition Labour is he’ll probably be fine.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
When it starts to produce significant cost push inflation. Of which there is currently no sign.
Any Brexiteers on here claiming this is irrelevant / doesn't matter / won't affect people are just illustrating how far up their own colons they have their heads.
This really, really, matters to a LOT of British people, especially at this time of year.
Treat this lightly at your peril.
Absolutely the pound being more competitive is very relevant and matters hugely to all exporters making us more competitive on the global stage.
It might hurt those who are exporting to us, like the Irish, be a shame if that is compounded by their exports being less competitive and facing no deal now wouldn't it?
From memory
Tories win 2015 general election: GBP rises to 1.6 USD Cameron announces referendum date: GBP sinks gradually to 1.45 Referendum day: Farage concedes: GBP rises to hit 1.5 USD momentarily 4am after the result: GBP falls to 1.35 USD After the 2017 conference speech, GBP fall to 1.2 After the Deal is agreed, GBP rise to over 1.3 USD Parliament fails to ratify, May resigns, GBP falls to around 1.24 Boris becomes PM, stabilises briefly at 1.25 USD As No Deal becomes the governing assumption GBP sinks towards 1.2 USD again and may fall lower
Your predicted export boom triggered by a lower pound has not manifested between 2015 and the present, and although I understand the theoretical basis for your prediction, it has not so far actually happened.
The majority of exports come from a very small subset of the UK population of workers. A large number of them work for foreign owned companies who are cautious to invest to take advantage of the opportunity given the political uncertainty. In fact some are divesting such as Honda. At the moment there are not even supportive words to exporters let alone real action. As such we could be in for a large crash in the pound. £1 = $1 is possible.
German exports to the UK were down 22% last month so the adjustment is already underway. Forget buying a Mercedes or Audi you wont be able to afford the service costs.
I don't see UK car manufacturing surviving Brexit on any scale. If No Deal happens we may import more Korean cars than German ones, but it doesn't help indigenous manufacturing.
The only company that is planning significant investment in the UK is JLR and that's a circumstance induced promise that may never happen. I suspect it's a high takeover risk. The buyer would take over the brands and make them elsewhere.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
When it starts to produce significant cost push inflation. Of which there is currently no sign.
Perhaps a black swan event could be if Apple significantly increase the GBP price of the next iPhone and blame the falling pound.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
At pretty much any time in history, you've been able to say "the British Pound is at its lowest level ever relative to the Swiss Franc".
So, at what point do we just dissolve the entire United Kingdom and apply to become cantons of the Helvetic Republic?
When the Helvetic Republic becomes the world economic & military superpower before whom we're bending over, and looking back over our shoulder asking them to give us 'a really good deal'?
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
If the BoE think it's a problem, they should hike up interest rates.
Given the speed at which GBP has lost value, a rate hike to defend the currency would have to be pretty big - big enough that it would create way more problems for the economy and for the government than the initial drop in the pound. That we are even having this discussion illustrates the demented rabbit hole of lunacy that Brexit is dragging us into.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
When it starts to produce significant cost push inflation. Of which there is currently no sign.
Perhaps a black swan event could be if Apple significantly increase the GBP price of the next iPhone and blame the falling pound.
Possibly. The more significant issue is usually oil which is rising in price anyway because of Iran's behaviour. As it is priced in dollars we are suffering a double whammy on that at the moment.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
When it starts to produce significant cost push inflation. Of which there is currently no sign.
Perhaps a black swan event could be if Apple significantly increase the GBP price of the next iPhone and blame the falling pound.
Well the next iphone will cost more in £ than it will in $ - last years models weren't much different.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
When it starts to produce significant cost push inflation. Of which there is currently no sign.
Perhaps a black swan event could be if Apple significantly increase the GBP price of the next iPhone and blame the falling pound.
Well the next iphone will cost more in £ than it will in $ - last years models weren't much different.
Is buying Apple products God's way of telling you you have too much money ?
Sterling is at a higher level now than, for example, it was at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017. And the high for 2019 is about... ooohhh... 1.31, so it's not like it's completely collapsed.
The big question that the UK economy has to answer, however, is this:
Does a c. 10% devaluation of Sterling boost exports meaningfully or not?
If it does, that's great, and part of resetting the British economy on a more sustainable path. If it does not, and sees British consumers borrow more to keep up consumption levels despite falling real incomes, then we should all be concerned.
Right now, the evidence from the PMIs is that export demand is not being stimulated. (Or rather, the global economic backdrop, with slowdowns in the US and Europe is such that any improved competitiveness is being offset by lower overall demand.) Consumer borrowing and the current account are also heading in the wrong direction.
Forget Brexit for a second: those numbers are simply horrible for the UK economy. The more unbalanced the UK economy is, the more painful bringing the current account and savings rates into balance becomes.
In the 243 years since American Independence in 1776(ish), the pound has been lower than this for only six months(ish). How low does it have to go before you think it's a problem?
When it starts to produce significant cost push inflation. Of which there is currently no sign.
Perhaps a black swan event could be if Apple significantly increase the GBP price of the next iPhone and blame the falling pound.
Well the next iphone will cost more in £ than it will in $ - last years models weren't much different.
Seems Johnson is doing McDonnell's work for him on the pound.
Sterling up again this morning and now consistently stronger on the week.
Currency markets understanding clearly what Hammond, Grieve, Gauke et al extraordinarily seem unable to grasp - that to get a decent deal the UK must prepare, credibly, for no deal.
No, its not. Its treading water against the $ fractionally down on the session so far.
The strength of sterling is traditionally viewed against the reserve currency (or a weighted global basket), and £/€ has the additional disadvantage that bad Brexit outcomes hit both currencies. The Euro has been weak this week against some poor EU economic data. With the £ flat against the $ your original "clearly" statement about the markets is nonsense.
Surely the benchmark currency for measuring Brexit is the euro?. There really is nothing to argue about here. Sterling is up on the week..
Best to stay quiet and be thought a fool than to post and remove all doubt....
Except that you are wrong. A transparent attempt to try and cite the currency markets in support of a conclusion you had reached before even looking.
The Euro is down, but the £ isn't up. Against the weighted basket the £ peaked (modestly) on Friday, and dropped marginally through yesterday. The basket isn't calculated for today, but £ being fractionally down against the $ nothing dramatic is happening this morning as yet. The markets are essentially flat, as they (like us) wonder what this all means.
This is hilarious. Sterling is up against the euro over the last week versus the benchmark EU currency! I look at these things for a living. There is no debate and your argument is sophistry.
Given all the tripe pouring out on a daily basis about Boris, not least on PB, this in itself is instructive in the week that BoJo became PM.
I am no particular out and out fan of BJ's but i know sound tactics when i see them.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
The problem is exacerbated by the constant hysteria in the media. So today's "crash" is currently standing at 0.3 of one cent against the Euro and 0.5c against the dollar. We live breathlessly from quarter to quarter on growth, in fact our addiction now gives us monthly growth figures. Getting hysterical about tenths of a percent on growth being "lost" because of Brexit is another symptom.
Meanwhile deep underlying problems such as our predilection for debt, our consequentially poor investment, our consequentially poor productivity and a dysfunctional property market which makes the employment market far less mobile than required are ignored. It really is time our media grew up and required our politicians to do likewise.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
Boris has a situation in the Persian Gulf top of course. I guess his response to that will be to pretend it never happened.
Good point. I confess I had forgotten about the Iran situation. Wonder if that is part of Cummings' plan. Has the situation changed, or can we sleep easy knowing Raab has it all under control?
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
The author is "a professor of political science at the University of New Haven". And the analysis is shockingly weak.
Now, I'm not saying he's not right (he could be), only the evidence he touts is so weak. He claims, for example, "Progressive voters will not support a moderate Democratic candidate, and moderate voters will not support a progressive Democratic candidate."
Is there polling evidence for this? Perhaps some kind of analysis of how a moderate candidate like Biden suppresses turnout of more left wing Democrats? Nope. Nothing. It's an assertion without a shred of data.
If this all the analysis required to get a Professorship at the University of New Haven, then pretty much every PBer should be in line.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
At some point it is all going to explode. When it does, it is going to be very nasty indeed. Deliberate acts of economic self-harm are not helpful.
All part of the same delusion if you ask me.
A nation has been flattered and fooled into thinking it is richer and more powerful than it really is.
You think people spend on their credit cards because they think the UK is powerful?
They spend on their credit cards because they think a slowdown will never come. Long period of stability mean people forget downtuns happen, and that they carry excessive levels of debt into inevitable downturns.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
At some point it is all going to explode. When it does, it is going to be very nasty indeed. Deliberate acts of economic self-harm are not helpful.
All part of the same delusion if you ask me.
A nation has been flattered and fooled into thinking it is richer and more powerful than it really is.
You think people spend on their credit cards because they think the UK is powerful?
No. Do you?
I must have misunderstood your last comment then. What did you mean?
That credit card spend and Brexit are part of the same delusion: namely that the world owes this country a favour (guaranteed trading links, a stable economy, etc)
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
At some point it is all going to explode. When it does, it is going to be very nasty indeed. Deliberate acts of economic self-harm are not helpful.
All part of the same delusion if you ask me.
A nation has been flattered and fooled into thinking it is richer and more powerful than it really is.
You think people spend on their credit cards because they think the UK is powerful?
They spend on their credit cards because they think a slowdown will never come. Long period of stability mean people forget downtuns happen, and that they carry excessive levels of debt into inevitable downturns.
Also real wages are rising again making debt more affordable, very high employment makes people more confident that they will find another job should anything happen to their present one, lowish interest rates (not for credit card debt but for HP etc) makes debt seem more affordable, there are rational reasons why debt might be increasing at the moment.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
The author is "a professor of political science at the University of New Haven". And the analysis is shockingly weak.
Now, I'm not saying he's not right (he could be), only the evidence he touts is so weak. He claims, for example, "Progressive voters will not support a moderate Democratic candidate, and moderate voters will not support a progressive Democratic candidate."
Is there polling evidence for this? Perhaps some kind of analysis of how a moderate candidate like Biden suppresses turnout of more left wing Democrats? Nope. Nothing. It's an assertion without a shred of data.
If this all the analysis required to get a Professorship at the University of New Haven, then pretty much every PBer should be in line.
Indeed. Read this the other day and was left underwhelmed. Trump seems to be motivating his supporters and opponents in equal measure. I can't see any sane Democrat thinking Trump was "the lesser of two evils" like last time. Otherwise, why are they Democrats at all?
Edit. First paragraph "Yet Trump appears on course for re-election." Does he? The polling suggests that is distinctly moot.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
At some point it is all going to explode. When it does, it is going to be very nasty indeed. Deliberate acts of economic self-harm are not helpful.
All part of the same delusion if you ask me.
A nation has been flattered and fooled into thinking it is richer and more powerful than it really is.
Remainers such as those who led the Labour Party between 2010 and 2015 have certainly played their part in that.
Don’t you mean since 1997? Not sure Ed Miliband can be blamed for any of this to be honest.
Well, obviously I think there is a special place in hell reserved for Gordon Brown.
But Ed Miliband and Ed Balls spent five years telling us how we deserved better and how terrible the Coalition austerity was. Is it any wonder that people carried on borrowing in excess during those years?
The author is "a professor of political science at the University of New Haven". And the analysis is shockingly weak.
Now, I'm not saying he's not right (he could be), only the evidence he touts is so weak. He claims, for example, "Progressive voters will not support a moderate Democratic candidate, and moderate voters will not support a progressive Democratic candidate."
Is there polling evidence for this? Perhaps some kind of analysis of how a moderate candidate like Biden suppresses turnout of more left wing Democrats? Nope. Nothing. It's an assertion without a shred of data.
If this all the analysis required to get a Professorship at the University of New Haven, then pretty much every PBer should be in line.
Indeed. Read this the other day and was left underwhelmed. Trump seems to be motivating his supporters and opponents in equal measure. I can't see any sane Democrat thinking Trump was "the lesser of two evils" like last time. Otherwise, why are they Democrats at all?
Edit. First paragraph "Yet Trump appears on course for re-election." Does he? The polling suggests that is distinctly moot.
Indeed, the 2018 midterm results in the Midwest were very ominous for Trump, especially in Wisconsin.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
At some point it is all going to explode. When it does, it is going to be very nasty indeed. Deliberate acts of economic self-harm are not helpful.
All part of the same delusion if you ask me.
A nation has been flattered and fooled into thinking it is richer and more powerful than it really is.
Remainers such as those who led the Labour Party between 2010 and 2015 have certainly played their part in that.
Don’t you mean since 1997? Not sure Ed Miliband can be blamed for any of this to be honest.
Well, obviously I think there is a special place in hell reserved for Gordon Brown.
But Ed Miliband and Ed Balls spent five years telling us how we deserved better and how terrible the Coalition austerity was. Is it any wonder that people carried on borrowing in excess during those years?
Pretty weak stuff. Anyway, the time to deleverage is when the sun is out. It looks like it may be forced on us instead.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
At some point it is all going to explode. When it does, it is going to be very nasty indeed. Deliberate acts of economic self-harm are not helpful.
All part of the same delusion if you ask me.
A nation has been flattered and fooled into thinking it is richer and more powerful than it really is.
Remainers such as those who led the Labour Party between 2010 and 2015 have certainly played their part in that.
Don’t you mean since 1997? Not sure Ed Miliband can be blamed for any of this to be honest.
Well, obviously I think there is a special place in hell reserved for Gordon Brown.
But Ed Miliband and Ed Balls spent five years telling us how we deserved better and how terrible the Coalition austerity was. Is it any wonder that people carried on borrowing in excess during those years?
Pretty weak stuff. Anyway, the time to deleverage is when the sun is out. It looks like it may be forced on us instead.
Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
That's the fundamental issue.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
At some point it is all going to explode. When it does, it is going to be very nasty indeed. Deliberate acts of economic self-harm are not helpful.
All part of the same delusion if you ask me.
A nation has been flattered and fooled into thinking it is richer and more powerful than it really is.
Remainers such as those who led the Labour Party between 2010 and 2015 have certainly played their part in that.
Don’t you mean since 1997? Not sure Ed Miliband can be blamed for any of this to be honest.
Well, obviously I think there is a special place in hell reserved for Gordon Brown.
But Ed Miliband and Ed Balls spent five years telling us how we deserved better and how terrible the Coalition austerity was. Is it any wonder that people carried on borrowing in excess during those years?
Pretty weak stuff. Anyway, the time to deleverage is when the sun is out. It looks like it may be forced on us instead.
And the two Eds didn't oppose Help to Buy.
Didn’t they? More fool them. It was Cameron/Osbornism at its worst.
Can any of the Brexiters who haunt this board explain why the pound keeps falling as the Brexit saga continues?
I thought Brexit was supposed to be a boon to the economy? That’s what we were promised before the referendum, and Rees-Mogg suggested as such again only last month.
Can any of the Brexiters who haunt this board explain why the pound keeps falling as the Brexit saga continues?
I thought Brexit was supposed to be a boon to the economy? That’s what we were promised before the referendum, and Rees-Mogg suggested as such again only last month.
Can any of the Brexiters who haunt this board explain why the pound keeps falling as the Brexit saga continues?
I thought Brexit was supposed to be a boon to the economy? That’s what we were promised before the referendum, and Rees-Mogg suggested as such again only last month.
Or are the currency markets just “wrong”?
The currency markets are insufficiently optimistic...
Didn’t they? More fool them. It was Cameron/Osbornism at its worst.
According to the National Audit Office, Help to Buy resulted in 14% more houses being built than would otherwise have been the case. It also helped tilt the market towards first-time buyers. It was a success, in other words; when it was introduced, the mortgage market was in a dire state.
Comments
https://www.change.org/p/labour-party-national-executive-committee-a-vote-of-no-confidence-in-tom-watson-mp-as-deputy-leader-of-the-labour-party?recruiter=894570180
My response to Stereo was fake news - apols for causing confusion.
You may well be right about the currency. My wife and I are going on a 24 day cruise to Canada and the US in September and are only to pleased we paid the cruise in full, the tips and all the excursions in June when the pound was circa 1.30. Obviously the relative small amount of extra spending in Canada and US dollars will be a little higher but it is not too much to be bothered about.
Also may holidays will have been booked when the exchange rates were higher and many all inclusive
It may have a negative effect but as we know those who want to just get it over and leave may well say 'so what'
Polls and trends over the coming weeks will be very interesting
He'll be there until there's a hard-enough Brexit to make whatever millions he plans to. If he stays active beyond Brexit, it's either not hard enough or he does actually have a longer-term vision of being in power.
My guess is he'd sooner be in a showbiz shock-jock role like Piers Morgan rather than all that tiresome old running a country shizz.
Well, beer and crepes obviously. But with a rather larger impact on the bank account than expected.
But real voters still see it as a protest movement. All great fun to deliver a bloody nose in low turnout Euro elections (precisely as they did via UKIP previously) but not to let loose on the levers of real power. How many times has Farage personally been beaten in Parliamentary elections now - six or seven? Let alone all those lesser Farage acolytes. And straight after the Euro Elections, we had a low turnout by-election in a decidedly Leave area... and they couldn't even get that one.
Michael Gove seemed to think our new PMs stance pretty foolish when he could speak freely in the leadership debate? Is he prominent enough?
There would be no problem from the EU if we asked to remove the backstop and accepted the consequences and that other parts of the agreement would necessarily have to change. They wont remove it from the current agreement as is.
Tories win 2015 general election: GBP rises to 1.6 USD
Cameron announces referendum date: GBP sinks gradually to 1.45
Referendum day: Farage concedes: GBP rises to hit 1.5 USD momentarily
4am after the result: GBP falls to 1.35 USD
After the 2017 conference speech, GBP fall to 1.2
After the Deal is agreed, GBP rise to over 1.3 USD
Parliament fails to ratify, May resigns, GBP falls to around 1.24
Boris becomes PM, stabilises briefly at 1.25 USD
As No Deal becomes the governing assumption GBP sinks towards 1.2 USD again and may fall lower
Your predicted export boom triggered by a lower pound has not manifested between 2015 and the present, and although I understand the theoretical basis for your prediction, it has not so far actually happened.
How on earth can somebody have spent a week's holiday in France and been drinking beer instead of wine?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/dont-worry-about-the-democratic-presidential-polls-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-donald-trump
...In 2016, FiveThirtyEight called her “the best pollster in politics.”
But even Selzer is finding it particularly difficult to get a thorough read this year. “There are too many candidates,” she said. “That’s a lot for likely caucus-goers to comprehend—the nuances of this person versus that person.” Given that few Iowans are firm in their choices at this point, she realized that asking people for their first choice, or even their top two choices, might not reflect the underlying strength of various candidates. So she changed things up. She began asking voters which candidates they were actively considering. “This gave us their footprint,” she said, and helped predict the rise of Warren and Harris after the June debates, in Miami.
When I asked Selzer whether we can know how things will turn out for the Democrats this cycle, she pointed to a Register analysis from earlier this month by Nick Coltrain and Tim Webber, who reported that the candidates are on track to appear at an astonishing three thousand events in Iowa before the February caucuses. “The candidates are going to spend millions of dollars and thousands of events trying to change how we see it right now,” she said. “Anybody who tells you they can look at the field now and know who’s going to get the nomination is kidding themselves.”
TBP's poll ratings are just A THIRD of where they were a couple of days before the Euros. He's lost Peterborough just days after walking the Euros there - and spaffed management time on a Quixotic attack on the by-election.
He's allowed a farcical trial in Gloucester of standing for locals: getting as low a vote share in a solid Leave town as he's getting in national opinions.
And in B&R the evidence right now is that he's taken enough votes from the Tories to ease the LibDems in - without any benefit to himself.
Is he actually Jo Swinson in drag? Because he's done more for the LibDems than any other politician on record In fact: has anyone ever seen them both at the same time?
Which is not to deny there will be "many" who *are* impacted more severely if their trade is almost exclusively with Brits - probably not looking so great for hypermarkets in Calais or dairy farmers on the Irish border in the event of a No Deal. But I still think the shock will be more easily born across the EU.
But as I type this sentence I am uncomfortably aware that I could be succumbing to the very same Conspiracy Theory nonsense that when it takes the form of "Corbyn deep down wants No Deal" I have no truck with whatsoever.
Politically expedient, and the message is "the UK asked us for a deal on their red lines. We gave them one, then they decided they didn't like it."
Happy, smiling workers will push production to record levels, driven by the sheer joy of liberty and Belief in Britain ...
https://twitter.com/InvoiceInsure/status/1138815885437747201
I imagine it's pretty hot cycling in France right now if the weather maps I have seen are correct.
And while the two-holidays a year, Mail-reading middle class will tut at more expensive holidays and TVs, there'll be a significant base of JAMs who can't afford either won't see it as a poor trade-off for getting rid of the foreigners (or whatever we're doing). That's not to say they won't be economically affected, but I'm not sure they'll see a direct correlation with exchange rates.
Unsurprisingly the club says "well **** you then".
Of course it might also hit confidence at a time when the EZ economy is on the brink itself. But the impacts are likely to be modest. The underlying problem isn't. Our trade deficit is equivalent to roughly 3% of GDP. Correcting that will cause a recession. And the longer we put it off the more those rentiers are in other countries getting a return on their UK assets.
I can guarantee the polls would be being reported very differently (By Politico, Vox, MSNBC, CNN etc) if someone else other than Biden had his polling shares at the moment.
The majority of exports come from a very small subset of the UK population of workers. A large number of them work for foreign owned companies who are cautious to invest to take advantage of the opportunity given the political uncertainty. In fact some are divesting such as Honda. At the moment there are not even supportive words to exporters let alone real action. As such we could be in for a large crash in the pound. £1 = $1 is possible.
German exports to the UK were down 22% last month so the adjustment is already underway. Forget buying a Mercedes or Audi you wont be able to afford the service costs.
Wait until mid September...
So, at what point do we just dissolve the entire United Kingdom and apply to become cantons of the Helvetic Republic?
The only company that is planning significant investment in the UK is JLR and that's a circumstance induced promise that may never happen. I suspect it's a high takeover risk. The buyer would take over the brands and make them elsewhere.
Back in the good old days (say 1997), the UK had a significant positive net assets position (c. 30% of GDP). It's now negative to around 20%. (That is, we've spent the equivalent of about 50% of GDP more than we've earned in the last two decades. That's quite scary.)
Back in 1997, we could run a 0.5% of GDP deficit in the Balance of Trade, and remittances from abroad would make up the gap. Now, it's the other way around. We now need to run a 0.5% BoT surplus if we just want to see our Current Account balance.
What's really scary is how much the time horizons of politicians have come in. Any kind of correction must be avoided by printing money or increasing spending or reducing taxes. The lessons of the 70s - that we need to spend within our means - have been completely forgotten, as politicians fear even the most modest of slowdowns.
Before Brexit, we were fifth, with a better credit rating (earned by undergoing the hard yards of austerity).
Someone’s got a funny definition of sunny uplands.
All gone now, and not much missed it seems.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-6558781/Credit-card-debt-soars-record-73bn-Fears-family-finances-epic-borrowing-binge.html
At some point it is all going to explode. When it does, it is going to be very nasty indeed. Deliberate acts of economic self-harm are not helpful.
Meanwhile deep underlying problems such as our predilection for debt, our consequentially poor investment, our consequentially poor productivity and a dysfunctional property market which makes the employment market far less mobile than required are ignored. It really is time our media grew up and required our politicians to do likewise.
A nation has been flattered and fooled into thinking it is richer and more powerful than it really is.
The author is "a professor of political science at the University of New Haven". And the analysis is shockingly weak.
Now, I'm not saying he's not right (he could be), only the evidence he touts is so weak. He claims, for example, "Progressive voters will not support a moderate Democratic candidate, and moderate voters will not support a progressive Democratic candidate."
Is there polling evidence for this? Perhaps some kind of analysis of how a moderate candidate like Biden suppresses turnout of more left wing Democrats? Nope. Nothing. It's an assertion without a shred of data.
If this all the analysis required to get a Professorship at the University of New Haven, then pretty much every PBer should be in line.
Not sure Ed Miliband can be blamed for any of this to be honest.
Edit. First paragraph "Yet Trump appears on course for re-election." Does he? The polling suggests that is distinctly moot.
But Ed Miliband and Ed Balls spent five years telling us how we deserved better and how terrible the Coalition austerity was. Is it any wonder that people carried on borrowing in excess during those years?
Anyway, the time to deleverage is when the sun is out. It looks like it may be forced on us instead.
It was Cameron/Osbornism at its worst.
I thought Brexit was supposed to be a boon to the economy? That’s what we were promised before the referendum, and Rees-Mogg suggested as such again only last month.
Or are the currency markets just “wrong”?
https://twitter.com/MatthewdAncona/status/1155840439746011137