Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The prospect of a vaccine by Christmas dominates the front pag

12467

Comments

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340
    The government borrowing figures don't look as bad as people thought, points to a reasonable V shaped recovery and a smaller drop than first anticipated.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,115
    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    But that's not what the report says. Rather than "there are no smoking guns", it's "we don't know whether there are any guns or any smoke, because nobody has bothered to check properly."
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    I never believed it would do anything of the sort. I think it is more significant than PB Tories give it credit for.

    Personally I've never been convinced that it was Russia, it's moronic Brits that delivered Brexit
    You were a cheerleader of Corbyn, definitely no position to think lowly of the electorate as attitudes of people like yourself helped deliver a Tory landslide and Brexit.
  • MaxPB said:

    The government borrowing figures don't look as bad as people thought, points to a reasonable V shaped recovery and a smaller drop than first anticipated.

    ..unless the government gives in to the Mark Francois tendency this autumn.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    The truth is the Russians never needed to interfere with our politics from 2016 to 2019.
    Corbyn and Brexit were and are as good as it gets for Putin.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    He didn't, it was just a dead cat to keep people banging on about nothing while also probably a little bit of puerile personal spite to Grieve.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    Brits weren't idiotic enough to vote for Corbyn so that can't be right.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,910

    Pulpstar said:

    Death figures now well below 5-year average and government borrowing lower than forecast... if Haldane is right that the economy has clawed back half of its losses by now (and the borrowing figures would seem consistent with that although very uncertain) then I think much reason to cheer.

    So when the dust has cleared does that mean the total deaths (which I seem to remember should be calculated from the excess) will be lower than first thought?
    If deaths have truly been "brought forward" then they won't appear twice.. Which in my opinion is why net excess mortality is the best metric.
    Natural month to month variation is also smoothed.
    If you wait long enough, then you'll ultimately conclude that covid had no effect at all since everybody who caught it would be dead even if they hadn't caught it! That's why I think that total years of life lost to the disease is perhaps a better metric of its seriousness, through obviously harder to calculate.
    Average life expectancy for 2020, when it is eventually calculated, should help there. Was COVID shortening lives by months or by years?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    Brits weren't idiotic enough to vote for Corbyn so that can't be right.
    They were idiotic enough to fall for the "oven ready" deal.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    “Black people are all the same”




    Sounds as if we'd be better off putting 'john daniszewski' in lower case as he deserves...
    The idea that globally black people are an ethnically homogenous group is absolubtely barking.
    As I understand it, there is actually much more genetic variation among black people than among white people due to whites all being descended from a relatively small number of people that migrated from Africa to Europe during prehistoric times. Mind you, there is, I think, more evidence of Neanderthal interbreeding among European populations, so perhaps I've got that wrong.
    If you're going from a US viewpoint then both the black and white populations are either (mostly) of west african or european origin.
    AP's choices in this matter look both very US centric and politically driven to me here.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,176

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    Morning all,

    Have we discussed the change in planning law the government is proposing. Two storey extensions can be built with almost no need for any planning input from council? "prior approval service" will be the assumption.

    I'm pretty sure where I am this will be a buy-to-let bonanza as professional landlords snap up property and immediately bolt on 2 stories going way out the back to allow for a HMO to be set up.


    They might but I suspect they will lose a lot of money - the demand for a small room close to work is going to disappear when you work from home and so spend most of the day in the same place..
    While if you're spending much more time at home by working from home etc the opportunity to add more space to your home could be greatly appreciated.

    Especially if that can be paid for by money you're no long spending commuting. Don't know about others but I'd rather spend money improving my home than commuting!
    "Let them eat cake" bias. 15% of people live in flats. The majority of houses are so small they might as well be flats and do not offer the option of extending the conservatory out over the croquet lawn. For a working couple you need two lots of office space so you have to extend the conservatory twice.
    You need an office to work?

    I'm currently working on my kitchen table. Or should be, I should probably log off. Have fun everyone!
    Fine, unless someone else is competing for kitchen table space to eat, work or cook. You are essentially glorying in the fact that your employer has effectively taken over and repurposed your living space.
    For some it might be a good trade. If you spend two hours a day commuting (for which no employer I know will pay you) it could easily be worth it.

    I speak as someone who is not going to be asked to work from home except in emergencies: teaching from home is not a good substitute for the real thing.
    I am also fortunate in that my commute is 20 minutes if I walk.
    I see it as a golden opportunity for capital to exploit the workers - why bother to supply them with offices, furniture, equipment, heating and electric if you can make them provide their own? Plus what with the employer's right to tell you what to do and obligation to provide you with a safe working environment, they can take control of the whole of your life.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Just a little but if everyday misogyny from the kinder, gentler left.

    He clearly thinks women are inferior to men so calling Boris "Doris" is an insult.

    No idea how such misogyny still exists in 2020 but there we go.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited July 2020

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Cummings is very likely to have frozen it so that its clear criticism of the government for failure to investigate Brexit-related issues couldn't be used as an election issue, in an election that was subsequently and effectively re-cast essentially as a Brexit referendum, and then Cummings and Boris most probably wanted to continue the delay just to annoy Grieve.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    I'm glad they did. War games if you ask me. The Brexit opponents assumed it was a bombshell and built it up and now it's got maximum exposure they've been made to look foolish.
  • Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    I would like to think a "world beating" government like this would have had the nouse to investigate especially after the US elections. This sounds like negligence on the goverment's part. Moreover, is there something called malicious negligence?
  • Brom said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    I never believed it would do anything of the sort. I think it is more significant than PB Tories give it credit for.

    Personally I've never been convinced that it was Russia, it's moronic Brits that delivered Brexit
    You were a cheerleader of Corbyn, definitely no position to think lowly of the electorate as attitudes of people like yourself helped deliver a Tory landslide and Brexit.
    At least I admit when I'm wrong, these morons will never hold their hands up and say they cocked up
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Would you say the same about those who voted for Scottish Independence two years earlier?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Doris refers to a mixture of Boris and Dom.
  • Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Would you say the same about those who voted for Scottish Independence two years earlier?
    Yes.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Doris refers to a mixture of Boris and Dom.
    And that makes it all right?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,977
    Leeds are 250/1 to win the Premiership. Get on it because the rest of you fuckers are only playing football and we are playing Bielsaball.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    If you can't understand it then you are narrow minded and ignorant. I can understand why other people vote as they do, even if I disagree with them and think they're wrong.

    Many users here have explained patiently to you and others why they have voted as they did. If you still don't understand it you're either being wilfully ignorant or simply need to pay attention to people other than yourself.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340
    Dura_Ace said:

    Leeds are 250/1 to win the Premiership. Get on it because the rest of you fuckers are only playing football and we are playing Bielsaball.

    Why am I not surprised that you're a dirty Leeds fan.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Doris refers to a mixture of Boris and Dom.
    I think that's somehow worse.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Doris refers to a mixture of Boris and Dom.
    No its not a portmanteau it is a girl's name.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    edited July 2020

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Doris refers to a mixture of Boris and Dom.
    And that makes it all right?
    Who are you to judge right or wrong? Perhaps I should have called him Liar or philanderer?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    edited July 2020
    So the government didn’t want to look into the EU referendum ! What a surprise ! And then now come out and say they couldn’t find any evidence ! Utter sham.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Doris refers to a mixture of Boris and Dom.
    And that makes it all right?
    Who are you to judge right or wrong? Perhaps I should have called him Liar or philanderer?
    That'd still be childish but at least it would not be misogynistic.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Would you say the same about those who voted for Scottish Independence two years earlier?
    Yes.
    It must be very nice to be so certain of the truth.

    Let me ask a different question: if we had been given the chance would you have voted for us to join the Euro?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited July 2020
    Scott_xP said:
    What a vast, blinding, and once-in-a-millennium shock.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,797

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    I never believed it would do anything of the sort. I think it is more significant than PB Tories give it credit for.

    Personally I've never been convinced that it was Russia, it's moronic Brits that delivered Brexit
    You were a cheerleader of Corbyn, definitely no position to think lowly of the electorate as attitudes of people like yourself helped deliver a Tory landslide and Brexit.
    At least I admit when I'm wrong, these morons will never hold their hands up and say they cocked up
    Noone gives a monkeys whether you or for that matter I were right , wrong or somewhere in the middle. Politics is a different ballgame to chatting on a blog. Until you are there, in power, with everything that goes with it, you can call people any names you like, but you don't know whether they were right or wrong. Sometimes there is no right, nor wrong. Its easy to be right with the benefit of hindsight
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Wait, I thought it was supposed to have been suppressed by No 10 because of the bombshell revelations in it? Titter.
    So why was it not published earlier?
    From what I read it was the previous committee that was holding it up, not No. 10. The contents of the report seem consistent with this.
    You've claimed that several times.
    I don't think it's true:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/04/no-10-blocks-russia-eu-referendum-report-until-after-election

    Do you have any basis for that claim ?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,749
    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    I'm glad they did. War games if you ask me. The Brexit opponents assumed it was a bombshell and built it up and now it's got maximum exposure they've been made to look foolish.
    Is it...classic Dom?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Doris refers to a mixture of Boris and Dom.
    And that makes it all right?
    Who are you to judge right or wrong? Perhaps I should have called him Liar or philanderer?
    That'd still be childish but at least it would not be misogynistic.
    Why does that make me misogynistic?

  • Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Doris refers to a mixture of Boris and Dom.
    And that makes it all right?
    Who are you to judge right or wrong? Perhaps I should have called him Liar or philanderer?
    Those names would be too unspecific I fear...
  • Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Would you say the same about those who voted for Scottish Independence two years earlier?
    Yes.
    It must be very nice to be so certain of the truth.

    Let me ask a different question: if we had been given the chance would you have voted for us to join the Euro?
    Don't know tbh, in the long run it doesn't seem to have hurt us much either way, since the Euro is close to parity with the Pound thanks to Brexit.
  • PB Tories really not happy I attacked their precious Brexit, oh diddums
  • Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    But that's not what the report says. Rather than "there are no smoking guns", it's "we don't know whether there are any guns or any smoke, because nobody has bothered to check properly."
    The wild and speculative claims all seem to be from those trying to play down this issue. Which is as odd as the suppression of the report itself.

    Those on the committee criticising its the deal in its release all said they couldn't understand it, as there was nothing particularly explosive in the report itself.
  • Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    If you can't understand it then you are narrow minded and ignorant. I can understand why other people vote as they do, even if I disagree with them and think they're wrong.

    Many users here have explained patiently to you and others why they have voted as they did. If you still don't understand it you're either being wilfully ignorant or simply need to pay attention to people other than yourself.
    And the award for total lack of self awareness goes to...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    I'm glad they did. War games if you ask me. The Brexit opponents assumed it was a bombshell and built it up and now it's got maximum exposure they've been made to look foolish.
    Except they didn't.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    Labour needs to stick to hammering the Gov't over Covid errors/poor Brexit implementation and avoid getting sidetracked onto "Russian interference". It'll just look like more nonsense to try and overturn Brexit again and Cummings will exploit it for electoral gain. It's a fight Labour's not going to win.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    Mr. Battery, if you check a long term graph the most significant shift in the last two decades was the financial crisis and 2008 recession. Before than it was around €1.45, and afterwards mostly €1.15ish, with a molehill around 2015/6.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    Customs Union would have got through if it weren't for the useless Lib Dem/Remainer at all costs CUKs.

    It would have been better than what we ended up with.

    The biggest problem with Remain from day 1 was an inability to compromise. And that was what did it for my side.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited July 2020
    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    But that's not what the report says. Rather than "there are no smoking guns", it's "we don't know whether there are any guns or any smoke, because nobody has bothered to check properly."
    The wild and speculative claims all seem to be from those trying to play down this issue. Which is as odd as the suppression of the report itself.

    Those on the committee criticising its the deal in its release all said they couldn't understand it, as there was nothing particularly explosive in the report itself.
    In one respect it may have been quite clever from Classic Dom. Having first clearly kept it out of last year's election debate and delayed it for political reasons, extending the delay created false drama which is useful for mocking the other side with on release.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    It is rather sad that there are people willing to believe conspiracy theories that somehow a foreign state rigged our elections rather than simply accept not enough people agreed with them.
  • Mr. Battery, if you check a long term graph the most significant shift in the last two decades was the financial crisis and 2008 recession. Before than it was around €1.45, and afterwards mostly €1.15ish, with a molehill around 2015/6.

    Please can you call me Horse. Calling me Mr makes me very uncomfortable and makes me feel like you're putting me above yourself.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Just a little but if everyday misogyny from the kinder, gentler left.

    He clearly thinks women are inferior to men so calling Boris "Doris" is an insult....
    'Borinic' just doesn't have the same euphony.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,641

    Jonathan said:

    It is remarkable how Conservatives have changed their tune on the economy.

    Scott_xP said:
    Can some please confirm if I'm barking up the wrong tree here . . .

    But if the Government "borrowed" £130 billion ($165 billion) by June.
    And if the Bank of England have done £310 billion of Quantitative Easing by June: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/quantitative-easing


    Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
    The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
    Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.

    What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
    Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish.
    The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
    Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.

    The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future

    In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
    Not at all.

    There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.

    The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.

    During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.

    For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
    What level of borrowing do you think is ok in normal times? Presumably more than 2.6% of GDP (2019) but less than 2.9% (2007)? What criteria do you use to arrive at this Thompson Rule? (What role does the fact that net debt was 34% of GDP in 2007 and 80% in 2019 play in your calculations?)
    Not sure where you're getting 2.6% from, the final pre-recession, pre-pandemic economic year had a deficit of 1.2% (2019) not 2.6%.

    As a rule of thumb borrowing in normal times depends upon the economic cycle but we should aim for it to be less than the year before during period of growth with an aim to bring the deficit to zero and keep it around zero. The delta, the change in the deficit is what matters most.

    Looking at the last 3 recessions we had in reverse order.
    A deficit of 1.2% of GDP following a decade of annual reductions in the deficit from a peak of over 10%.
    A deficit of 2.6% of GDP following five years of growth after the deficit had been a surplus.
    A budget surplus when the recession hit.

    Spot the odd one out.
    2.6% is the OBR's number for PSNB for FY19/20. Where do you get 1.2% from? That looks like the primary balance number (excluding debt payments). The primary deficit was 1.2% in 2019 and also 1.2% in 2007. Your thesis that borrowing was out of control in 2007 but responsible in 2019 is hard to sustain with reference to the data.
    You said 2019 so why are you using 2020 data, the recession had already begun in 2020? You can't use data from during the recession and claim it is before the recession.

    The final full economic year before the recession hit was FY18/19.
    I am using fiscal year data (April-March) because that is how it is conventionally published. Since the Covid crisis effectively started, in terms of its economic impact, in the last two weeks of March, it had virtually no effect on the public finances in FY19/20. You could say the same for 2008 - although in quarterly terms the recession started in Q2, GDP growth was already negative in March. So your clean comparison would be 2006/07 (2.6%) Vs 2018/19 (1.9%). In terms of primary deficit it's 1% Vs 0.4%. It's hard to make the case that just 0.6 or 0.7% of GDP is the difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy.
    Yes use economic year data but you need to use the final economic year before the recession began which is measured using quarterly growth figures.

    In 2008 it was Q3 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2008/09 and sets 2007/08 as the baseline.
    In 2020 it was Q1 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2019/20 and sets 2018/19 as the baseline.

    Using 2019/20 when the recession had already began in 2019/20 is like using 2008/09.

    As for a 0.7% difference is it not hard whatsoever to make the case the that 0.7% is a tremendous difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy. Because we also need to consider where that came from in the years before then.

    As I said it is the year on year change in the deficit that matters more than what the deficit is for judging soundness. Brown managed to spend five years pissing away a budget surplus and transform it into a higher deficit than the Tories had going into the next recession coming off a 10% deficit they had inherited.
    The deficit was lower as a % of GDP in both 06/07 and 07/08 than in 96/97, so Brown also reduced the deficit relative to the one he inherited from the Tories. He also reduced debt as a % of GDP over the same period.
    1996/97 was a different stage of the economic cycle than 2007/08 too.

    Nobody to my knowledge objects to how Brown dealt with the deficit between 1996/97 to 2001/02. He ran sound finances then and I've never seen any Tories say otherwise. Of course he was largely following Ken Clarke's plans then but that is to his credit that he did.

    It is from 2002 onwards that Brown blew the deficit wide open prior to the recession.
    Following Clarke's financial settlement was a mistake, it was too tight (Clarke himself said he wouldn't have followed it). As a result, public services were grossly under-resourced and public debt fell to a level that was unsustainably low given the financial system's demand for safe assets. I would agree that they over-corrected by increasing spending too aggressively subsequently, although I think they recognised that, which is why the deficit was on a declining path between 2004/05 and 2006/07. But running a deficit of 2-3% of GDP is perfectly reasonable when the economy is growing broadly in line with potential as the UK economy was during that period.
    Look, I understand you have a narrative about Labour profligacy that you want to sell, and you evidently believe it yourself. I just don't think it is one that most economists would recognise as a fair description of events.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    But that's not what the report says. Rather than "there are no smoking guns", it's "we don't know whether there are any guns or any smoke, because nobody has bothered to check properly."
    The wild and speculative claims all seem to be from those trying to play down this issue. Which is as odd as the suppression of the report itself.

    Those on the committee criticising its the deal in its release all said they couldn't understand it, as there was nothing particularly explosive in the report itself.
    I thought someone explained last night that there was a technical reason why it could be held back.

    More 'seriously', what next for the conspiracy theorists aka Rump Corbyn?
  • It is rather sad that there are people willing to believe conspiracy theories that somehow a foreign state rigged our elections rather than simply accept not enough people agreed with them.

    This is pretty much exactly what I think. Remain did a piss poor job of exposing Leave's lies and false promises.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    If Remainers like Grieve etc, Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP had gotten behind the EEA as the next best thing to do after Brexit then the ERG would have been irrelevant. EEA could have easily won a majority in the last Parliament at the indicative vote stage but Remainers chose to reject it.

    Instead Remainers hubristically decided they could block Brexit altogether instead of coming down in favour of a form of Brexit. More fool them, that handed the power to the ERG.

    In the indicative vote stage only 64 MPs voted in favour of EEA - almost all of them Tories! Had the Remainer opposition gotten behind EEA there was definitely a majority there for it but the Remainers voted against EEA. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your-mp-vote-in-the-indicative-votes
  • Jonathan said:

    It is remarkable how Conservatives have changed their tune on the economy.

    Scott_xP said:
    Can some please confirm if I'm barking up the wrong tree here . . .

    But if the Government "borrowed" £130 billion ($165 billion) by June.
    And if the Bank of England have done £310 billion of Quantitative Easing by June: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/quantitative-easing


    Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
    The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
    Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.

    What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
    Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish.
    The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
    Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.

    The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future

    In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
    Not at all.

    There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.

    The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.

    During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.

    For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
    What level of borrowing do you think is ok in normal times? Presumably more than 2.6% of GDP (2019) but less than 2.9% (2007)? What criteria do you use to arrive at this Thompson Rule? (What role does the fact that net debt was 34% of GDP in 2007 and 80% in 2019 play in your calculations?)
    Not sure where you're getting 2.6% from, the final pre-recession, pre-pandemic economic year had a deficit of 1.2% (2019) not 2.6%.

    As a rule of thumb borrowing in normal times depends upon the economic cycle but we should aim for it to be less than the year before during period of growth with an aim to bring the deficit to zero and keep it around zero. The delta, the change in the deficit is what matters most.

    Looking at the last 3 recessions we had in reverse order.
    A deficit of 1.2% of GDP following a decade of annual reductions in the deficit from a peak of over 10%.
    A deficit of 2.6% of GDP following five years of growth after the deficit had been a surplus.
    A budget surplus when the recession hit.

    Spot the odd one out.
    2.6% is the OBR's number for PSNB for FY19/20. Where do you get 1.2% from? That looks like the primary balance number (excluding debt payments). The primary deficit was 1.2% in 2019 and also 1.2% in 2007. Your thesis that borrowing was out of control in 2007 but responsible in 2019 is hard to sustain with reference to the data.
    You said 2019 so why are you using 2020 data, the recession had already begun in 2020? You can't use data from during the recession and claim it is before the recession.

    The final full economic year before the recession hit was FY18/19.
    I am using fiscal year data (April-March) because that is how it is conventionally published. Since the Covid crisis effectively started, in terms of its economic impact, in the last two weeks of March, it had virtually no effect on the public finances in FY19/20. You could say the same for 2008 - although in quarterly terms the recession started in Q2, GDP growth was already negative in March. So your clean comparison would be 2006/07 (2.6%) Vs 2018/19 (1.9%). In terms of primary deficit it's 1% Vs 0.4%. It's hard to make the case that just 0.6 or 0.7% of GDP is the difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy.
    Yes use economic year data but you need to use the final economic year before the recession began which is measured using quarterly growth figures.

    In 2008 it was Q3 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2008/09 and sets 2007/08 as the baseline.
    In 2020 it was Q1 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2019/20 and sets 2018/19 as the baseline.

    Using 2019/20 when the recession had already began in 2019/20 is like using 2008/09.

    As for a 0.7% difference is it not hard whatsoever to make the case the that 0.7% is a tremendous difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy. Because we also need to consider where that came from in the years before then.

    As I said it is the year on year change in the deficit that matters more than what the deficit is for judging soundness. Brown managed to spend five years pissing away a budget surplus and transform it into a higher deficit than the Tories had going into the next recession coming off a 10% deficit they had inherited.
    The deficit was lower as a % of GDP in both 06/07 and 07/08 than in 96/97, so Brown also reduced the deficit relative to the one he inherited from the Tories. He also reduced debt as a % of GDP over the same period.
    1996/97 was a different stage of the economic cycle than 2007/08 too.

    Nobody to my knowledge objects to how Brown dealt with the deficit between 1996/97 to 2001/02. He ran sound finances then and I've never seen any Tories say otherwise. Of course he was largely following Ken Clarke's plans then but that is to his credit that he did.

    It is from 2002 onwards that Brown blew the deficit wide open prior to the recession.
    Following Clarke's financial settlement was a mistake, it was too tight (Clarke himself said he wouldn't have followed it). As a result, public services were grossly under-resourced and public debt fell to a level that was unsustainably low given the financial system's demand for safe assets. I would agree that they over-corrected by increasing spending too aggressively subsequently, although I think they recognised that, which is why the deficit was on a declining path between 2004/05 and 2006/07. But running a deficit of 2-3% of GDP is perfectly reasonable when the economy is growing broadly in line with potential as the UK economy was during that period.
    Look, I understand you have a narrative about Labour profligacy that you want to sell, and you evidently believe it yourself. I just don't think it is one that most economists would recognise as a fair description of events.
    The Tories backed Labour's spending plans and wanted less regulation. The idea they'd have done better than Labour is bollocks
  • Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    If you can't understand it then you are narrow minded and ignorant. I can understand why other people vote as they do, even if I disagree with them and think they're wrong.

    Many users here have explained patiently to you and others why they have voted as they did. If you still don't understand it you're either being wilfully ignorant or simply need to pay attention to people other than yourself.
    Yes, a number of people have told me personally why they voted for Brexit:

    Dad: Too many foreigners
    Mum: Neil Kinnock's pension too generous (!)
    Sis: Dad said I should
    Postman: For higher wages
    Nurse: For more money for the NHS
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746

    Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    The ERG never had the numbers to stop May's deal on their own. Corbyn & the Labour remainers were hard of thinking and foresight on the issue of Brexit though, culminating in that ridiculous letter Benn forced on Johnson. It was a combination of too clever by half from the remainers and thick as mince from the Corbynites. Mana from heaven for the Tories in the 2019 election campaign.
  • Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    But that's not what the report says. Rather than "there are no smoking guns", it's "we don't know whether there are any guns or any smoke, because nobody has bothered to check properly."
    The wild and speculative claims all seem to be from those trying to play down this issue. Which is as odd as the suppression of the report itself.

    Those on the committee criticising its the deal in its release all said they couldn't understand it, as there was nothing particularly explosive in the report itself.
    I thought someone explained last night that there was a technical reason why it could be held back.

    More 'seriously', what next for the conspiracy theorists aka Rump Corbyn?
    There was no technical reason for it not to have been published before the election, it was just inconvenient. It had been signed off by all the relevant authorities and no previous report had been delayed more than a week to 10 days more than that after clearance.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited July 2020

    Jonathan said:

    It is remarkable how Conservatives have changed their tune on the economy.

    Scott_xP said:
    Can some please confirm if I'm barking up the wrong tree here . . .

    But if the Government "borrowed" £130 billion ($165 billion) by June.
    And if the Bank of England have done £310 billion of Quantitative Easing by June: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/quantitative-easing


    Then doesn't that mean we are in net LESS real debt than we were before this hit?
    The £310bn is the total that was announced in June, it won't be completed until year-end, and it includes £10-20bn of corporate bonds do gilt purchases will be a bit under £300bn. Total borrowing in FY20-21 will likely be close to £400bn so it's likely that net issuance net of BOE purchases will still be positive - although the BOE may buy more in Q1 2021 (the last quarter of the fiscal year). However, for the year to date the BOE purchases have been greater than net isduance, as they were front-loaded with aggressive buying at the start.
    Thanks. So net there might be some real borrowing by the government but a tiny fraction of what is being touted in these headlines.

    What a shame that no journalists seem to be economically literate or wanting to give the full picture rather than just spout off massive numbers.
    Yes the standards of economic journalism in this country are pretty bad, journalism in general in fact. And then we let these ignorant hacks run the country (Johnson and Gove) and wonder why everything goes to shit. Basically, most of what is written about the economy outside of the FT and BBC is rubbish.
    The BOE covering most or all of net issuance is a repeat of 2009. If they do the same again, the big build up of debt net of BOE purchases will happen in subsequent years. Government borrowing will almost certainly stay elevated for several years from here.
    Indeed this is what I was saying from the start of the crisis.

    The impact of this crisis is so vast that realistically the only way to cope is printing money this year. The Bank will print money to cover this year's debts but can't be expected to do that indefinitely so in the future

    In future years the deficit will need to be brought under control just like it had to be from 2010 onwards but the way to do that is to ensure the taxpaying base of the economy survives as best as it can this year. Not fretting over every penny and pound borrowed this year.
    Not at all.

    There was no problem borrowing in 2007/08 for the financial crisis.

    The problem was increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2007 and not wanting to address the eyewatering legacy of the deficit in 2009/10 onwards.

    During a temporary systemic shock crisis do what you need to do. Before and afterwards though you need to be responsible.

    For some reason socialists seem to think that the 2007/08 financial crisis absolved them of any reason to tackle the deficit before 2007 or that it shouldn't be tackled in 2010 onwards.
    What level of borrowing do you think is ok in normal times? Presumably more than 2.6% of GDP (2019) but less than 2.9% (2007)? What criteria do you use to arrive at this Thompson Rule? (What role does the fact that net debt was 34% of GDP in 2007 and 80% in 2019 play in your calculations?)
    Not sure where you're getting 2.6% from, the final pre-recession, pre-pandemic economic year had a deficit of 1.2% (2019) not 2.6%.

    As a rule of thumb borrowing in normal times depends upon the economic cycle but we should aim for it to be less than the year before during period of growth with an aim to bring the deficit to zero and keep it around zero. The delta, the change in the deficit is what matters most.

    Looking at the last 3 recessions we had in reverse order.
    A deficit of 1.2% of GDP following a decade of annual reductions in the deficit from a peak of over 10%.
    A deficit of 2.6% of GDP following five years of growth after the deficit had been a surplus.
    A budget surplus when the recession hit.

    Spot the odd one out.
    2.6% is the OBR's number for PSNB for FY19/20. Where do you get 1.2% from? That looks like the primary balance number (excluding debt payments). The primary deficit was 1.2% in 2019 and also 1.2% in 2007. Your thesis that borrowing was out of control in 2007 but responsible in 2019 is hard to sustain with reference to the data.
    You said 2019 so why are you using 2020 data, the recession had already begun in 2020? You can't use data from during the recession and claim it is before the recession.

    The final full economic year before the recession hit was FY18/19.
    I am using fiscal year data (April-March) because that is how it is conventionally published. Since the Covid crisis effectively started, in terms of its economic impact, in the last two weeks of March, it had virtually no effect on the public finances in FY19/20. You could say the same for 2008 - although in quarterly terms the recession started in Q2, GDP growth was already negative in March. So your clean comparison would be 2006/07 (2.6%) Vs 2018/19 (1.9%). In terms of primary deficit it's 1% Vs 0.4%. It's hard to make the case that just 0.6 or 0.7% of GDP is the difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy.
    Yes use economic year data but you need to use the final economic year before the recession began which is measured using quarterly growth figures.

    In 2008 it was Q3 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2008/09 and sets 2007/08 as the baseline.
    In 2020 it was Q1 which was the first negative growth figure so that rules out 2019/20 and sets 2018/19 as the baseline.

    Using 2019/20 when the recession had already began in 2019/20 is like using 2008/09.

    As for a 0.7% difference is it not hard whatsoever to make the case the that 0.7% is a tremendous difference between sound economic management and catastrophic fiscal profligacy. Because we also need to consider where that came from in the years before then.

    As I said it is the year on year change in the deficit that matters more than what the deficit is for judging soundness. Brown managed to spend five years pissing away a budget surplus and transform it into a higher deficit than the Tories had going into the next recession coming off a 10% deficit they had inherited.
    The deficit was lower as a % of GDP in both 06/07 and 07/08 than in 96/97, so Brown also reduced the deficit relative to the one he inherited from the Tories. He also reduced debt as a % of GDP over the same period.
    1996/97 was a different stage of the economic cycle than 2007/08 too.

    Nobody to my knowledge objects to how Brown dealt with the deficit between 1996/97 to 2001/02. He ran sound finances then and I've never seen any Tories say otherwise. Of course he was largely following Ken Clarke's plans then but that is to his credit that he did.

    It is from 2002 onwards that Brown blew the deficit wide open prior to the recession.
    Following Clarke's financial settlement was a mistake, it was too tight (Clarke himself said he wouldn't have followed it). As a result, public services were grossly under-resourced and public debt fell to a level that was unsustainably low given the financial system's demand for safe assets. I would agree that they over-corrected by increasing spending too aggressively subsequently, although I think they recognised that, which is why the deficit was on a declining path between 2004/05 and 2006/07. But running a deficit of 2-3% of GDP is perfectly reasonable when the economy is growing broadly in line with potential as the UK economy was during that period.
    Look, I understand you have a narrative about Labour profligacy that you want to sell, and you evidently believe it yourself. I just don't think it is one that most economists would recognise as a fair description of events.
    No running a deficit of 2-3% of GDP without trying to reduce it while the economy is growing is a catastrophically stupid mistake that led to economic catastrophe in the public finances. It is not "perfectly reasonable".
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Would you say the same about those who voted for Scottish Independence two years earlier?
    Yes.
    It must be very nice to be so certain of the truth.

    Let me ask a different question: if we had been given the chance would you have voted for us to join the Euro?
    Don't know tbh, in the long run it doesn't seem to have hurt us much either way, since the Euro is close to parity with the Pound thanks to Brexit.
    I ask because one reason that people voted to leave (and the reason I carefully considered doing so myself) was that they were worried that the EU was heading towards a much closer union and eventually becoming a United States of Europe one small step at a time without ever seeming to ask people if that was what they wanted. Having a single currency is a big step on that road: indeed if we had joined the Euro I’m not sure that we could have left.
    I eventually decided that the benefits outweighed the democratic deficit and voted remain, but I can certainly understand those that voted the other way.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Nigelb said:

    Brom said:

    glw said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour was in power and this report was published PB Tories would be saying they were bought and paid for by the Russian state.

    As usual, hypocrisy.

    Would have helped if Labour supporters hadn't been building the report up as a massive smoking gun that could bring down Tories and key Brexit figures. Now it's a damp squib they appear to be reverse ferreting and suggesting its all a massive cover up and they've been bought off.

    Can't win with conspiracy theorists - they'll always find an angle that suits them and never apologise.
    Conspiracy Threory 101: The absence of massive smoking guns proves the existence of massive smoking guns.
    Yeah, the spin going on is unbelivable. These folk are genuinly unhinged and project whatever they wanted to happen on to some incredibly innoucous reports. These folk never try and learn why other people might think or vote differently but automatically assume that something must have gone wrong with the democratic process.

    Life in their echo chambers cannot be fun.
    So why did Doris move heaven and earth to cover up the report?
    Is calling someone a name with a gender than the one they identify with now OK then?
    Just a little but if everyday misogyny from the kinder, gentler left.

    He clearly thinks women are inferior to men so calling Boris "Doris" is an insult....
    'Borinic' just doesn't have the same euphony.
    I suppose 'Bummings' might be considered homophobic.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033

    Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    Customs Union would have got through if it weren't for the useless Lib Dem/Remainer at all costs CUKs.

    It would have been better than what we ended up with.

    The biggest problem with Remain from day 1 was an inability to compromise. And that was what did it for my side.
    On that I have to agree with you.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    BUT WHAT ABOUT FOOTNOTE 50???
  • Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Would you say the same about those who voted for Scottish Independence two years earlier?
    Yes.
    It must be very nice to be so certain of the truth.

    Let me ask a different question: if we had been given the chance would you have voted for us to join the Euro?
    Don't know tbh, in the long run it doesn't seem to have hurt us much either way, since the Euro is close to parity with the Pound thanks to Brexit.
    I ask because one reason that people voted to leave (and the reason I carefully considered doing so myself) was that they were worried that the EU was heading towards a much closer union and eventually becoming a United States of Europe one small step at a time without ever seeming to ask people if that was what they wanted. Having a single currency is a big step on that road: indeed if we had joined the Euro I’m not sure that we could have left.
    I eventually decided that the benefits outweighed the democratic deficit and voted remain, but I can certainly understand those that voted the other way.
    You are the very rare minority that I can appreciate, the majority I am confident voted "to kick the foreigners out", or because they wanted to give the NHS more money.

    They were lied to, I am sorry if that hurts people but that's my conclusion.

    I am not suggesting for one second we re-fight these battles, like you I think we should have given up after it was lost and gone straight for a softish Norway-style relationship.

    I maintain if Labour and the others had got behind this from day one, it is possible it could have been delivered.

    To be honest the Lib Dems and CUK were the worst, they simply would not compromise on anything. Corbyn allowed himself to be pushed around from pillar to post and that was a fatal mistake. Then he sat on the fence so long he got splinters. Trying to defend that behaviour was agonising, even if I understood the logic behind it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    If you can't understand it then you are narrow minded and ignorant. I can understand why other people vote as they do, even if I disagree with them and think they're wrong.

    Many users here have explained patiently to you and others why they have voted as they did. If you still don't understand it you're either being wilfully ignorant or simply need to pay attention to people other than yourself.
    And the award for total lack of self awareness goes to...
    I am self-aware. I try to understand why you voted for an antisemite even if I disagreed with it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    Brexiteers blaming those who didn't want, advocate for vote for Brexit.

    Again.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,115
    Pulpstar said:


    Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    The ERG never had the numbers to stop May's deal on their own. Corbyn & the Labour remainers were hard of thinking and foresight on the issue of Brexit though, culminating in that ridiculous letter Benn forced on Johnson. It was a combination of too clever by half from the remainers and thick as mince from the Corbynites. Mana from heaven for the Tories in the 2019 election campaign.
    Except that, had a deal like that shown signs of going through, TM would have been an ex-PM faster than you could say "vassal state".
  • Pulpstar said:


    Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    The ERG never had the numbers to stop May's deal on their own. Corbyn & the Labour remainers were hard of thinking and foresight on the issue of Brexit though, culminating in that ridiculous letter Benn forced on Johnson. It was a combination of too clever by half from the remainers and thick as mince from the Corbynites. Mana from heaven for the Tories in the 2019 election campaign.
    They should have never allowed the election.

    Of course if Corbyn had just resigned after 2017 it's likely Starmer would be PM now but there you go.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    Twenty years ago, MI5 devoted around 20% of its effort to Hostile State Activity, which includes Russian activity alongside the hostile activity of other states, such as China and Iran.72 This allocation of effort declined, as the terrorist threat grew. By 2001/02, it had reduced to 16% and by 2003/04 to 10.7%. This fall continued until, by 2008/09, only 3% of effort was allocated by MI5 to all its work against Hostile State Activity (noting that reductions in proportion of overall effort do not translate directly into changes in resource).73 It was not until 2013/14 that effort began to increase significantly, rising to 14.5%74 – a level that MI5 says meant that slightly more staff were working on Russia than had been during the Cold War.75 The past two years have seen ***: currently, ***% is allocated to Hostile State Activity, approximately *** which is dedicated to countering Russian Hostile State Activity.76

    Major "eye off the ball".....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Would you say the same about those who voted for Scottish Independence two years earlier?
    Yes.
    It must be very nice to be so certain of the truth.

    Let me ask a different question: if we had been given the chance would you have voted for us to join the Euro?
    Don't know tbh, in the long run it doesn't seem to have hurt us much either way, since the Euro is close to parity with the Pound thanks to Brexit.
    I ask because one reason that people voted to leave (and the reason I carefully considered doing so myself) was that they were worried that the EU was heading towards a much closer union and eventually becoming a United States of Europe one small step at a time without ever seeming to ask people if that was what they wanted. Having a single currency is a big step on that road: indeed if we had joined the Euro I’m not sure that we could have left.
    I eventually decided that the benefits outweighed the democratic deficit and voted remain, but I can certainly understand those that voted the other way.
    You are the very rare minority that I can appreciate, the majority I am confident voted "to kick the foreigners out", or because they wanted to give the NHS more money.

    They were lied to, I am sorry if that hurts people but that's my conclusion.

    I am not suggesting for one second we re-fight these battles, like you I think we should have given up after it was lost and gone straight for a softish Norway-style relationship.

    I maintain if Labour and the others had got behind this from day one, it is possible it could have been delivered.

    To be honest the Lib Dems and CUK were the worst, they simply would not compromise on anything. Corbyn allowed himself to be pushed around from pillar to post and that was a fatal mistake. Then he sat on the fence so long he got splinters. Trying to defend that behaviour was agonising, even if I understood the logic behind it.
    Please show me any literature - even one - from Vote Leave which were the official leave campaign saying they would "kick the foreigners out" and please explain how it was a lie.

    Even one piece of literature or quote would do. Just one please. Any at all.
  • Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    If you can't understand it then you are narrow minded and ignorant. I can understand why other people vote as they do, even if I disagree with them and think they're wrong.

    Many users here have explained patiently to you and others why they have voted as they did. If you still don't understand it you're either being wilfully ignorant or simply need to pay attention to people other than yourself.
    And the award for total lack of self awareness goes to...
    I am self-aware. I try to understand why you voted for an antisemite even if I disagreed with it.
    I actually voted Lib Dem - but tactically.

    Why did you vote for an Islamaphobe and a party that is rampant with it?

    Are you seriously going to try and play the moral high ground game, again? This debate is circular, you just stick your fingers in you ears and shout "Islamophobia does not exist". It's boring.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,797

    It is rather sad that there are people willing to believe conspiracy theories that somehow a foreign state rigged our elections rather than simply accept not enough people agreed with them.

    This is pretty much exactly what I think. Remain did a piss poor job of exposing Leave's lies and false promises.
    Whereas leave did a great job in exposing the lies and hypocrisy of the remain camp... and Remain lost. Suck it up.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited July 2020

    Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    If Remainers like Grieve etc, Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP had gotten behind the EEA as the next best thing to do after Brexit then the ERG would have been irrelevant. EEA could have easily won a majority in the last Parliament at the indicative vote stage but Remainers chose to reject it.

    Instead Remainers hubristically decided they could block Brexit altogether instead of coming down in favour of a form of Brexit. More fool them, that handed the power to the ERG.

    In the indicative vote stage only 64 MPs voted in favour of EEA - almost all of them Tories! Had the Remainer opposition gotten behind EEA there was definitely a majority there for it but the Remainers voted against EEA. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your-mp-vote-in-the-indicative-votes
    Several of these voting for a deal that included EEA still opposed free movement. Unless an EEA deal had been proposed and agreed by the government, of necessity including free movement, then that the movement would have collapsed. That was impossible because May had ruled out free movement earlier on.

    These arguments have been rehearsed many times, now, but the failure of EEA was to do with May's (the ERG's) "red lines" on immigration early on.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    If Remainers like Grieve etc, Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP had gotten behind the EEA as the next best thing to do after Brexit then the ERG would have been irrelevant. EEA could have easily won a majority in the last Parliament at the indicative vote stage but Remainers chose to reject it.

    Instead Remainers hubristically decided they could block Brexit altogether instead of coming down in favour of a form of Brexit. More fool them, that handed the power to the ERG.

    In the indicative vote stage only 64 MPs voted in favour of EEA - almost all of them Tories! Had the Remainer opposition gotten behind EEA there was definitely a majority there for it but the Remainers voted against EEA. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your-mp-vote-in-the-indicative-votes
    Several of these voting for a deal that included EEA still opposed free movement. Unless an EEA deal had been proposed and agreed by the government, of necessity including free movement, then that the movement would have collapsed. That was impossible because May had ruled out free movement earlier on.

    These arguments have been rehearsed many times, now, but the failure of EEA was to do with May's (the ERG's) "red lines" on immigration early on.
    Customs Union would have passed were it not for CUK and the Lib Dems. That will always be an odd one to me.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033
    Scott_xP said:

    Brexiteers blaming those who didn't want, advocate for vote for Brexit.

    Again.

    I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what this means: is there a word missing?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002

    Mr. Battery, if you check a long term graph the most significant shift in the last two decades was the financial crisis and 2008 recession. Before than it was around €1.45, and afterwards mostly €1.15ish, with a molehill around 2015/6.

    Please can you call me Horse. Calling me Mr makes me very uncomfortable and makes me feel like you're putting me above yourself.
    Morris Dancer calls everyone Mr and it is quite endearing
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited July 2020
    @Philip_Thompson when have you ever tried to understand why I supported (did not vote - although like I said it was tactical) Corbyn or Labour in 2019? You never have, you're gold-plated hypocrite. And it's very funny to watch.
  • Mr. Battery, if you check a long term graph the most significant shift in the last two decades was the financial crisis and 2008 recession. Before than it was around €1.45, and afterwards mostly €1.15ish, with a molehill around 2015/6.

    Please can you call me Horse. Calling me Mr makes me very uncomfortable and makes me feel like you're putting me above yourself.
    Morris Dancer calls everyone Mr and it is quite endearing
    Nah I think it's fucking unnerving and I asked him to stop.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,473

    It is rather sad that there are people willing to believe conspiracy theories that somehow a foreign state rigged our elections rather than simply accept not enough people agreed with them.

    I've no doubt that the Russians, and others, interfere in our elections, and more generally try to sow division by promoting extremist messages. We need to guard against such actions. Assessing how effective these operations are is very difficult, it could range from little more than noise to changing the outcome. I doubt we will ever be able to say with certainty how effective such actions are, but it would be unwise to think they don't work, which is why we need to be rigourous in combatting them.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,045

  • Off Topic

    From today's Times:
    "Joe Biden considers congresswoman Karen Bass as presidential election ally"

    The Betfair Exchange currently has her at 14.5 (aka 12.8/1 net) to be the Democratic VP pick
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited July 2020
    Pulpstar said:


    Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    The ERG never had the numbers to stop May's deal on their own. Corbyn & the Labour remainers were hard of thinking and foresight on the issue of Brexit though, culminating in that ridiculous letter Benn forced on Johnson. It was a combination of too clever by half from the remainers and thick as mince from the Corbynites. Mana from heaven for the Tories in the 2019 election campaign.
    Blaming Remainers for Hard Brexit is fairly absurd, I'm afraid, as first May and then Johnson worked concertedly to close down options from July 2016 onward. The general problem was that there were not sufficient numbers for any eventual outcome that included both EEA and free movement, not that there were not enough Labour members supporting May's deal. We still don't know what Boris's eventual deal may be, but May's deal may not have been much less economically damaging in any case.

  • Not Carole again, she's way off the deep end.

    I think it's possible Russia interfered in the referendum - I think the UK delivered it itself however.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002

    Mr. Battery, if you check a long term graph the most significant shift in the last two decades was the financial crisis and 2008 recession. Before than it was around €1.45, and afterwards mostly €1.15ish, with a molehill around 2015/6.

    Please can you call me Horse. Calling me Mr makes me very uncomfortable and makes me feel like you're putting me above yourself.
    Morris Dancer calls everyone Mr and it is quite endearing
    Nah I think it's fucking unnerving and I asked him to stop.
    You have a lovely way with words
  • Mr. Battery, if you check a long term graph the most significant shift in the last two decades was the financial crisis and 2008 recession. Before than it was around €1.45, and afterwards mostly €1.15ish, with a molehill around 2015/6.

    Please can you call me Horse. Calling me Mr makes me very uncomfortable and makes me feel like you're putting me above yourself.
    Morris Dancer calls everyone Mr and it is quite endearing
    Nah I think it's fucking unnerving and I asked him to stop.
    You have a lovely way with words
    You can fuck off too if you like, how's that?
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,465
    Stranded fledgling !

    A young blackbird is stranded on the ground outside my kitchen door. It's desperate father keeps trying to feed it a grub and constantly squawks at the poor thing.

    Any suggestions?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    @Philip_Thompson when have you ever tried to understand why I supported (did not vote - although like I said it was tactical) Corbyn or Labour in 2019? You never have, you're gold-plated hypocrite. And it's very funny to watch.

    You supported Labour because you are a left wing socialist who opposes the Tories and thought that Labour would spend more and have policies more in fitting with what you believe in. You'd rather have had John McDonnell than a Tory as Chancellor.

    Am I wrong?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002

    Mr. Battery, if you check a long term graph the most significant shift in the last two decades was the financial crisis and 2008 recession. Before than it was around €1.45, and afterwards mostly €1.15ish, with a molehill around 2015/6.

    Please can you call me Horse. Calling me Mr makes me very uncomfortable and makes me feel like you're putting me above yourself.
    Morris Dancer calls everyone Mr and it is quite endearing
    Nah I think it's fucking unnerving and I asked him to stop.
    You have a lovely way with words
    You can fuck off too if you like, how's that?
    Predictable response
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Mr. Battery, if you check a long term graph the most significant shift in the last two decades was the financial crisis and 2008 recession. Before than it was around €1.45, and afterwards mostly €1.15ish, with a molehill around 2015/6.

    Please can you call me Horse. Calling me Mr makes me very uncomfortable and makes me feel like you're putting me above yourself.
    Morris Dancer calls everyone Mr and it is quite endearing
    Nah I think it's fucking unnerving and I asked him to stop.
    Just because you ask someone to stop doesn't mean they're obliged to do so. Unless it's something they're doing just to you.
  • @Philip_Thompson when have you ever tried to understand why I supported (did not vote - although like I said it was tactical) Corbyn or Labour in 2019? You never have, you're gold-plated hypocrite. And it's very funny to watch.

    You supported Labour because you are a left wing socialist who opposes the Tories and thought that Labour would spend more and have policies more in fitting with what you believe in. You'd rather have had John McDonnell than a Tory as Chancellor.

    Am I wrong?
    Not a socialist, I'm a social democrat. So that's wrong.
  • ChelyabinskChelyabinsk Posts: 445
    edited July 2020

    Twenty years ago, MI5 devoted around 20% of its effort to Hostile State Activity, which includes Russian activity alongside the hostile activity of other states, such as China and Iran.72 This allocation of effort declined, as the terrorist threat grew. By 2001/02, it had reduced to 16% and by 2003/04 to 10.7%. This fall continued until, by 2008/09, only 3% of effort was allocated by MI5 to all its work against Hostile State Activity (noting that reductions in proportion of overall effort do not translate directly into changes in resource).73 It was not until 2013/14 that effort began to increase significantly, rising to 14.5%74 – a level that MI5 says meant that slightly more staff were working on Russia than had been during the Cold War.75 The past two years have seen ***: currently, ***% is allocated to Hostile State Activity, approximately *** which is dedicated to countering Russian Hostile State Activity.76

    Major "eye off the ball".....

    Looking at the number of Islamicist terrorist incidents, it seems not:

    2001 - 2013 (12 years)
    2005 7/7 bombings
    2007 Glasgow Airport attack
    2010 Stephen Timms stabbing
    2013 Lee Rigby stabbing

    2013 - 2020 (7 years)
    2017 Westminster attack
    2017 Manchester Arena bombing
    2017 London Bridge attack
    2017 Parsons Green bombing
    2018 Westminster Car attack
    2018 Manchester Victoria stabbing
    2019 Thornton Heath stabbing
    2019 London Bridge stabbing
    2020 Whitemoor prison incident
    2020 Streatham stabbing

    Remember how Obama told us in 2012 that Romney was ridiculous to be worried about the Russians?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002
    Toms said:

    Stranded fledgling !

    A young blackbird is stranded on the ground outside my kitchen door. It's desperate father keeps trying to feed it a grub and constantly squawks at the poor thing.

    Any suggestions?

    Probably just leave it to its own devices
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,813

    Pulpstar said:

    Like I said, blaming Russia is giving idiot Brits too much credit.

    A decent proportion of 52% of the population are idiots. To this day there is no reason to have voted for Brexit, end of story.

    If you cannot understand why anyone would vote for something that gets more than a low single figure percentage of the vote then I think that says more about you than them. You may not agree with their reasons or have a different set of priorities to them, but understanding why they did it is the first step to convincing them to change their minds next time.
    No I can't understand why they voted for it to this day. There was no logical reason.
    Once it was voted for, it should have been far more readily accepted by the remain side than it was though - particularly after the 2017 election. Have to say I was appalled by just how many sore losers there were on my side - the British public gave their verdict on the shenanigans in 2019.
    This I do agree with and I was an advocate for EEA and I would have been very happy with that.

    The Remain side should have given up and went for EEA from day one, when there was political will to deliver it.

    Labour should have got behind it.
    The ERG prevented this from being a runner, and they prevented any Tory leader from proposing it. In the last parliament it wouldn't have got through.
    Customs Union would have got through if it weren't for the useless Lib Dem/Remainer at all costs CUKs.

    It would have been better than what we ended up with.

    The biggest problem with Remain from day 1 was an inability to compromise. And that was what did it for my side.
    It might have “got through” but it wouldn’t have stuck because it would have been seen as a sham. Only someone who could convince people he was a true Brexiteer could get away with betraying Brexit, as Boris Johnson did.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    @Philip_Thompson when have you ever tried to understand why I supported (did not vote - although like I said it was tactical) Corbyn or Labour in 2019? You never have, you're gold-plated hypocrite. And it's very funny to watch.

    You supported Labour because you are a left wing socialist who opposes the Tories and thought that Labour would spend more and have policies more in fitting with what you believe in. You'd rather have had John McDonnell than a Tory as Chancellor.

    Am I wrong?
    Not a socialist, I'm a social democrat. So that's wrong.
    Distinction without a difference. You say social democrat I say socialist. Again like Mr Dancer people can use the language they like when they speak.

    So apart from quibbling over a single word was the gist of what I said right or wrong?
This discussion has been closed.