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

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

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.

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Pulpstar said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TheWhiteRabbit 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.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Pulpstar said:

BluestBlue 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.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Brom said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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?

Daveyboy1961 said:

Brom said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Brom said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Brom said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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?

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1285526675170775042

RobD said:

logical_song said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1285511470856450054

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Brom said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Brom said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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?

Stuartinromford said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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."

Brom said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Brom said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

Nigelb said:

Stuartinromford said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

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

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Brexit/status/1285461607250833408

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.

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Pulpstar said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

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

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Brexit/status/1285461607250833408

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.

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Brom said:

glw said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

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...

Pulpstar said:

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Pulpstar said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

Philip_Thompson said:

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Pulpstar said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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

Scott_xP said:

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

Again.

brokenwheel said:

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.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@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.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

CarlottaVance said:

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".....

CorrectHorseBattery said:

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Pulpstar said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.