Howdy, Stranger!

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

At 20% both Trump and Biden are value in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.

    Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
    Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.
    Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.
    The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularity

    We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.

    Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.

    They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
    We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.
    We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.

    Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.

    Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
    Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.

    What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
    When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.

    I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
    I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.
    The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.

    By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
    100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.

    Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.

    Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?

    Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,485

    It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.

    I don’t think they did.

    The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.

    It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).

    PB Tories are always trying to change history.
    Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.

    "The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.

    In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."

    Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.

    (I voted Remain)
    I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.

    I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.

    Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
    Its also worth thinking about whether you want better GDP or better GDP per capita.
    Its almost a truism that every person in this country is adding to GDP, even an unemployed individual. Having someone paid minimum wage will boost GDP. But if they're claiming more in benefits than they are paying in taxes and deflating GDP per capita then is that a good thing?
    Sure: but do remember that that process has limits. Enforcing a maximum of one child per family, plus a brake on immigration will maximise GDP per capita in the short-run, but will absolutely massacre you in the longer-term. (See Japan and Italy.)
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    Surely there's a continuum here.

    If John dies on Saturday, outing him on Sunday is at the very best poor manners.

    If John died in 1823, then outing him is just - as you say - a part of history.
    I disagree, to be honest. Once you're dead, you're dead. But the man in question died over 50 years ago, not on Saturday. I don't see why his life shouldn't be subject to discussion and analysis by historians.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    Surely there's a continuum here.

    If John dies on Saturday, outing him on Sunday is at the very best poor manners.

    If John died in 1823, then outing him is just - as you say - a part of history.
    Has Sir Isaac Newton ever been outed? Shall we out him now, as a world first on PB - celebrate Robert’s new policy decision.

    I mean, just look at any portrait of Sir Isaac and the gaydar spins does it not.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,563
    edited October 2021

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    In the spirit of PB pedantry, the little boy in Sixth Sense can tell the difference between living people and dead people. Even the surprise dead person, I think.

    Perhaps you're thinking of Watson in the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock film? ("No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not")

    :tongue:
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434
    Selebian said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    In the spirit of PB pedantry, the little boy in Sixth Sense can tell the difference between living people and dead people. Even the surprise dead person, I think.

    Perhaps you're thinking of Watson in the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock film? ("No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not")

    :tongue:
    Ha ha very true, and great avoidance of spoilers too.
    There's also the great Groucho Marx line where he checks a corpse's pulse against his watch and says "either this man is dead or my watch has stopped".
  • Selebian said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    In the spirit of PB pedantry, the little boy in Sixth Sense can tell the difference between living people and dead people. Even the surprise dead person, I think.

    Perhaps you're thinking of Watson in the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock film? ("No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not")

    :tongue:

    Cole Sear: I see PB Tory people.
    Malcolm Crowe: In your dreams?
    [Cole shakes his head]
    Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake?
    [Cole nods]
    Malcolm Crowe: PB Tories like, in thread headers? Below The Line?
    Cole Sear: Hanging around on PB like regular PBers. They don't see each other. They only vote for what they want to vote for. They don't know they're PB Tories.
    Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?
    Cole Sear: All the time. They're everywhere!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    isam said:
    Why are they ALWAYS such intensely annoying hypocrites. Every Single Time
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,485
    Leon said:

    isam said:
    Why are they ALWAYS such intensely annoying hypocrites. Every Single Time
    How is it hypocritical for her to be married to someone who works for TfL?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    Surely there's a continuum here.

    If John dies on Saturday, outing him on Sunday is at the very best poor manners.

    If John died in 1823, then outing him is just - as you say - a part of history.
    I disagree, to be honest. Once you're dead, you're dead. But the man in question died over 50 years ago, not on Saturday. I don't see why his life shouldn't be subject to discussion and analysis by historians.
    It's interesting to use past figures as a way of examining our historic attitudes to various topics. In this case, homosexuality. However, there is a difference between saying: "This gentleman was a very private man, and we are unsure of his sexuality. He may have been gay. Here is some evidence. What do you think?" and "HE WAS GAY! AREN'T WE WONDERFUL FOR SAYING IT!!!"
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:
    Why are they ALWAYS such intensely annoying hypocrites. Every Single Time
    How is it hypocritical for her to be married to someone who works for TfL?
    Because she enjoys the income of a man whose job it is to keep TfL going, but she is also happy to fuck up TfL and all its passengers
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:
    Why are they ALWAYS such intensely annoying hypocrites. Every Single Time
    How is it hypocritical for her to be married to someone who works for TfL?
    Because she was chaining herself to the DLR
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,330
    Leon said:

    isam said:
    Why are they ALWAYS such intensely annoying hypocrites. Every Single Time
    Trying to assuage guilt? So they have to work against themselves?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    Slam her in jail for six months. That'll learn her
  • MrEd said:

    Afternoon. On topic, some cheery reading for all you regulars out there:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/trump-winning-2024-real-election-nightmare/620368/

    Not if the election is as 'fortified' as it was last time.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    Leon said:

    Slam her in jail for six months. That'll learn her

    It won't happen. She will be released and allowed to carry on. Irrespective of the law and any court orders.

    The party of law and order. What a shambles :smiley:
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,892
    edited October 2021
    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    Surely there's a continuum here.

    If John dies on Saturday, outing him on Sunday is at the very best poor manners.

    If John died in 1823, then outing him is just - as you say - a part of history.
    Has Sir Isaac Newton ever been outed? Shall we out him now, as a world first on PB - celebrate Robert’s new policy decision.

    I mean, just look at any portrait of Sir Isaac and the gaydar spins does it not.
    Mark Steel (at the very least) got there first;

    https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/the_mark_steel_lectures/episodes/1/2/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:
    Why are they ALWAYS such intensely annoying hypocrites. Every Single Time
    How is it hypocritical for her to be married to someone who works for TfL?
    Because she was chaining herself to the DLR
    DLR chaining by day, dinner parties with the luvvies by night.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,563

    Selebian said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    In the spirit of PB pedantry, the little boy in Sixth Sense can tell the difference between living people and dead people. Even the surprise dead person, I think.

    Perhaps you're thinking of Watson in the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock film? ("No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not")

    :tongue:

    Cole Sear: I see PB Tory people.
    Malcolm Crowe: In your dreams?
    [Cole shakes his head]
    Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake?
    [Cole nods]
    Malcolm Crowe: PB Tories like, in thread headers? Below The Line?
    Cole Sear: Hanging around on PB like regular PBers. They don't see each other. They only vote for what they want to vote for. They don't know they're PB Tories.
    Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?
    Cole Sear: All the time. They're everywhere!
    Is he really called Cole Sear? That's nominative determinism in action, isn't it?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    edited October 2021
    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    Surely there's a continuum here.

    If John dies on Saturday, outing him on Sunday is at the very best poor manners.

    If John died in 1823, then outing him is just - as you say - a part of history.
    Has Sir Isaac Newton ever been outed? Shall we out him now, as a world first on PB - celebrate Robert’s new policy decision.

    I mean, just look at any portrait of Sir Isaac and the gaydar spins does it not.
    IIRC most historians agree that Newton remained celibate for his entire life, which does not necessarily make him gay, but suggests that he may have been, and to an extent that he preferred not to conclude a marriage of convenience to hide that ("buggery", as it was then called, was a capital offence until the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was enacted).

    But yes, I agree, once someone is dead then they become part of the historical record, and if evidence can be found by historians of a particular attribute of them or action they took that wasn't previously known, then there should be no objection to making that public.

    Whether the NT has such evidence in the case @Charles cites is another matter though. If they have no strong evidence then they shouldn't say so. If the evidence available to historians for that person suggests that they may have been gay, then the NT should qualify their assertion as "possibly" or similar.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,826
    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Slam her in jail for six months. That'll learn her

    It won't happen. She will be released and allowed to carry on. Irrespective of the law and any court orders.

    The party of law and order. What a shambles :smiley:
    It might happen because the chances of her case arriving in court before 2024 are currently rather slim.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,936
    edited October 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:
    Why are they ALWAYS such intensely annoying hypocrites. Every Single Time
    How is it hypocritical for her to be married to someone who works for TfL?
    It's certainly not as hypocritical as pretending to gives a gnat's arse about the future of your children while happily and repeatedly jetting between continents.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    eek said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Slam her in jail for six months. That'll learn her

    It won't happen. She will be released and allowed to carry on. Irrespective of the law and any court orders.

    The party of law and order. What a shambles :smiley:
    It might happen because the chances of her case arriving in court before 2024 are currently rather slim.
    Very true. :wink:
  • Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,563

    Selebian said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.
    In the spirit of PB pedantry, the little boy in Sixth Sense can tell the difference between living people and dead people. Even the surprise dead person, I think.

    Perhaps you're thinking of Watson in the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock film? ("No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not")

    :tongue:
    Ha ha very true, and great avoidance of spoilers too.
    There's also the great Groucho Marx line where he checks a corpse's pulse against his watch and says "either this man is dead or my watch has stopped".
    Well, don't want to spoil it for anyone :wink: You never know - I frequently make my wife despair due to having seen pretty much no Disney film during my childhood.* So we'll be watching one of the live action remakes and she makes a comment on some difference and I'm just saying 'eh?'. You know I hadn't realised Aladdin was the kid, not the genie? I assumed the lamp belonged to the genie. Aladdin's lamp, right? Caused some confusion/horror when I asked about that early on in the Will Smith version.

    *I don't know why this is; my parents have no pathological Disney aversion. We just, for some reason watched the Hanna-Barbera or Warner Bros cartoons rather than Disney and we didn't watch that many films or go to the cinema really.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited October 2021

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same character

    Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:
    Why are they ALWAYS such intensely annoying hypocrites. Every Single Time
    How is it hypocritical for her to be married to someone who works for TfL?
    It's certainly not as hypocritical as pretending to gives a gnat's arse about the future of your children while happily and repeatedly jetting between continents.
    Stop being horrible. Don't you realise how soothing it is to be able to dismiss all climate change protesters as evil hypocrites?
  • What do the films Titanic and The Sixth Sense have in common?

    Icy dead people.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    John Hamm in his episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, in the last season

    Genius
  • isam said:

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same character
    That's the most common answer, I think, and a good shout.

    But funnier than Lammy?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    isam said:

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same character

    Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times
    After the learned discussion about virtuoso comedy turns in Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and Dad's Army, I enjoyed the nomination "Edwin Poots as DUP leader".
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited October 2021

    isam said:

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same character
    That's the most common answer, I think, and a good shout.

    But funnier than Lammy?
    It was a fantastic cameo by Rik Mayall, about half a dozen great one liners in 3-4 mins, if that, as well as headbutting Lord Percy!

    Lammy a funny suggestion too


  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Chris said:

    isam said:

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same character

    Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times
    After the learned discussion about virtuoso comedy turns in Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and Dad's Army, I enjoyed the nomination "Edwin Poots as DUP leader".
    A few post Farage UKIP leaders could fit the bill too

    Wade Boggs in Cheers was good
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434
    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:
    Why are they ALWAYS such intensely annoying hypocrites. Every Single Time
    How is it hypocritical for her to be married to someone who works for TfL?
    It's certainly not as hypocritical as pretending to gives a gnat's arse about the future of your children while happily and repeatedly jetting between continents.
    Stop being horrible. Don't you realise how soothing it is to be able to dismiss all climate change protesters as evil hypocrites?
    I thought it was ironic hearing Tories denouncing them for blocking the Blackwall Tunnel Approach Road the other day, given that Boris Johnson's decision as mayor to cancel the planned Thames crossing east of Blackwall has caused far more traffic jams in SE London (basically, gridlock everywhere whenever someone so much as farts in the Blackwall Tunnel) than these protestors could ever hope to.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    isam said:

    Chris said:

    isam said:

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same character

    Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times
    After the learned discussion about virtuoso comedy turns in Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and Dad's Army, I enjoyed the nomination "Edwin Poots as DUP leader".
    A few post Farage UKIP leaders could fit the bill too

    Wade Boggs in Cheers was good
    Soft spot for Ace Rimmer in Red Dwarf, but again, may have cropped up more than once.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    MrEd said:

    Afternoon. On topic, some cheery reading for all you regulars out there:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/trump-winning-2024-real-election-nightmare/620368/

    Thanks.

    Gives the impression that those who are most worried about Trump 2024 are focused on him stealing a win rather than a proper win. I don't know they are discounting that so much, given how close it was last time and Biden becoming weaker as time goes on.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    kjh said:

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.

    Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
    Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.
    Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.
    The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularity

    We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.

    Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.

    They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
    We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.
    But if you look at this chart you will see that there is no change at all in the rate of increase of employment from the date of the referendum until March 2020 when Covid struck: https://www.statista.com/statistics/281992/employment-rate-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=In the three months to April 2021, the,a relatively fast pace, peaking in early 2020.

    The contention that unemployment would go up by 520k was the exact opposite of the truth: instead employment went up by rather more than that (nearly twice) in the 2 year forecast period. As forecasts go it is at the bottom end of crap.
    And, it should hardly need saying, since their forecast of lost growth was built upon lost employment when in fact employment increased by over 1m, that alleged loss of GDP is also crap.

    But if this sort of nonsense makes @Gardenwalker feel superior who am I to argue?
    Aren't our housing prices supposed to have collapsed by a quarter by now?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    edited October 2021

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.

    Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
    Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.
    Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.
    The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularity

    We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.

    Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.

    They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
    We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.
    We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.

    Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.

    Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
    Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.

    What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
    When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.

    I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
    I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.
    The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.

    By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
    100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.

    Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.

    Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?

    Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
    I'm bothered again by one of your words, "estimate".
    You haven't shown any working, only a rather unbelievable figure at the end. Indistinguishable from a figure plucked out of your derrier.

    If you wanted to do a proper calculation, you are right to emphasise the number of people looking to upgrade their pay packet (as you say, people averse to moving to lower-paid jobs), but you also need to account for other aversions or barriers: language, distance from family, familiarity with the place where the work is (related to distance, but not the same thing), experience, qualification recognition, and so on.

    You say "Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours." Well, yes. I was setting an approximate upper bound on the ratio. I wasn't controlling for population demographics, but approximating the working age population as being similar proportion of the overall population leads us to about the same ratio, hence the "give or take".

    So where does that leave us? A population that is 6x the size of ours, attracted by moderately high wages (some countries have higher, most others lower), and repelled by linguistic, cultural, and geographical concerns.

    That's a long way off "infinite", even if you modify with "effectively". It's also a long way off 100,000%.

    What we see here, yet again, is you exaggerating to emphasise your opinion. This is why I think you're dishonest. You're doing no more than many others on there, expressing your point of view, but you put a lot of effort into making it seem like you're distributing bland pearls of objective fact. You aren't. Time and again, people on here catch you red handed doing this.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890


    (basically, gridlock everywhere whenever someone so much as farts in the Blackwall Tunnel)

    I blame the vegans.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616

    isam said:

    Chris said:

    isam said:

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same character

    Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times
    After the learned discussion about virtuoso comedy turns in Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and Dad's Army, I enjoyed the nomination "Edwin Poots as DUP leader".
    A few post Farage UKIP leaders could fit the bill too

    Wade Boggs in Cheers was good
    Soft spot for Ace Rimmer in Red Dwarf, but again, may have cropped up more than once.
    Lord Flashheart in Blackadder 2. Technically the later Flashhearts are compltely different people.
  • Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Do you support nutters disrupting London's public transport?
  • Chris said:


    (basically, gridlock everywhere whenever someone so much as farts in the Blackwall Tunnel)

    I blame the vegans.
    https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringway1
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,771

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    Delighted to see that my instinctive choice got mentioned...

    https://twitter.com/Mikeado/status/1448269438076260356

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    US The Consumer Price Index climbs to 5.4 percent
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    edited October 2021

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Do you support nutters disrupting London's public transport?
    Are you talking about Boris Johnson when he was Mayor? I am not sure it's a great idea to refer to people you disagree with as 'nutters'.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,301

    MrEd said:

    Afternoon. On topic, some cheery reading for all you regulars out there:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/trump-winning-2024-real-election-nightmare/620368/

    Thanks.

    Gives the impression that those who are most worried about Trump 2024 are focused on him stealing a win rather than a proper win. I don't know they are discounting that so much, given how close it was last time and Biden becoming weaker as time goes on.
    But the election was before Jan 6th and Trump's failure to accept the result.
    Also we have criminal cases ongoing. That must have some effect.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Do you support nutters disrupting London's public transport?
    Are you talking about Boris Johnson when he was Mayor? I am not sure it's a great idea to refer to people you disagree with as 'nutters'.
    The woman married to the TfL guy did chain herself to the DLR, you know.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    edited October 2021
    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
  • Looks like Shatner spent more time on the ground waiting for Bezos et al. to open the hatch than he did in space :lol:
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    Looks like Shatner spent more time on the ground waiting for Bezos et al. to open the hatch than he did in space :lol:

    Was he waiting for the DLR to turn up?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very, very clever and at the same time toxic. You have to appreciate the hypocrisy. The shrill call of "Outrage at Nudity", with extensive coverage of nudity for everyone to enjoy being outraged by.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 785
    edited October 2021
    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    kjh said:

    It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.

    I don’t think they did.

    The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.

    It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).

    PB Tories are always trying to change history.
    Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.

    "The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.

    In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."

    Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.

    (I voted Remain)
    I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.

    I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.

    Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
    An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.

    What is your reason for not wanting to do it?
    Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,385

    US The Consumer Price Index climbs to 5.4 percent

    Brexit hitting hard haw haw
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,000

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.

    Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
    Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.
    Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.
    The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularity

    We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.

    Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.

    They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
    We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.
    We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.

    Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.

    Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
    Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.

    What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
    When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.

    I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
    I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.
    The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.

    By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
    100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.

    Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.

    Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?

    Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
    Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.

    It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
  • Farooq said:

    Looks like Shatner spent more time on the ground waiting for Bezos et al. to open the hatch than he did in space :lol:

    Was he waiting for the DLR to turn up?
    Dallas Light Rodeo?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,978
    Does anyone have figures showing how far off each country is from pre-pandemic GDP, or how far it has exceeded it?
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    edited October 2021


    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.

    Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
    Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.
    Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.
    The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularity

    We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.

    Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.

    They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
    We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.
    We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.

    Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.

    Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
    Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.

    What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
    When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.

    I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
    I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.
    The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.

    By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
    100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.

    Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.

    Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?

    Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
    Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.

    It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
    Counting with Wulfrun:
    1, 2, ∞
    There are some who claim that other numbers exist, but they're timewasting pedants.

    Given that we've now dispensed with the need for numbers, we can agree that everybody gets paid £∞ and we don't need to keep out the forriners.
  • PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693


    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.

    Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
    Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.
    Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.
    The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularity

    We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.

    Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.

    They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
    We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.
    We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.

    Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.

    Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
    Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.

    What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
    When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.

    I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
    I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.
    The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.

    By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
    100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.

    Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.

    Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?

    Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
    Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.

    It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
    Except PT’s economics are extremely primitive, besides.

    Seamus Mallon famously called the Belfast Agreement, “Sunningdale for slow learners”.

    Brexit is basically trade and labour economics for slow learners.

    Eventually more credulous posters like @DavidL will wake up.

    PT however will be reiterating the same arguments until the heat death of the universe.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403
    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    also identical to the Guardian/Daily mirror/ Sun.....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,771
    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    To be honest, I go to a variety of websites to see what's happening. Occasionally the Mail will have a story that's not been reported elsewhere. For example, they reported that FIFA are expected to postpone the Club World Cup:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10070323/FIFA-set-POSTPONE-years-Club-World-Cup-2022.html
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,296

    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
    The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403
    tlg86 said:

    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    To be honest, I go to a variety of websites to see what's happening. Occasionally the Mail will have a story that's not been reported elsewhere. For example, they reported that FIFA are expected to postpone the Club World Cup:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10070323/FIFA-set-POSTPONE-years-Club-World-Cup-2022.html
    Quite - most journalism whatever the host is a pile of crap - you need to sift them all for the occasional gems - still searching for any re Covid.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403
    kinabalu said:

    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
    The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
    Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938

    kjh said:

    It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.

    I don’t think they did.

    The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.

    It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).

    PB Tories are always trying to change history.
    Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.

    "The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.

    In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."

    Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.

    (I voted Remain)
    I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.

    I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.

    Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
    An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.

    What is your reason for not wanting to do it?
    Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.
    Cheers. I thought that might be the case.

    Isn't what one thinks of ones 'self' in 'self governance' subjective. Historically it is GB or UK or England but could equally be Surrey or the EU. As you know I don't have these strong attachments and find them odd, but understand that many do feel strongly about them. I don't feel anymore attachment to a Yorkshireman than Frenchman.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,467
    felix said:

    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    also identical to the Guardian/Daily mirror/ Sun.....
    Have you ever read the Guardian Felix or relying on your intuition?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,296
    tlg86 said:

    Just reading through replies to this tweet

    @Madz_Grant
    Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
    https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671

    My favourite is definitely

    Denis Hatcher
    @albion2016
    Replying to
    @Madz_Grant
    David Lammy on Mastermind.

    Delighted to see that my instinctive choice got mentioned...

    https://twitter.com/Mikeado/status/1448269438076260356

    Is that the "PC Support" guy in The Office? If so, yes, hilarious.
  • kjh said:

    kjh said:

    It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.

    I don’t think they did.

    The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.

    It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).

    PB Tories are always trying to change history.
    Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.

    "The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.

    In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."

    Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.

    (I voted Remain)
    I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.

    I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.

    Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
    An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.

    What is your reason for not wanting to do it?
    Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.
    Cheers. I thought that might be the case.

    Isn't what one thinks of ones 'self' in 'self governance' subjective. Historically it is GB or UK or England but could equally be Surrey or the EU. As you know I don't have these strong attachments and find them odd, but understand that many do feel strongly about them. I don't feel anymore attachment to a Yorkshireman than Frenchman.
    So you claim and yet you and the Yorkshireman are part of the same body politic, engaged with relatively the same media, debating relatively the same policies and relatively the same parties engaged in that.

    That's not the case with you and the Frenchman - despite the veneer of respectability the EU have tried to do by sticking a European "party" stamp against the real parties names.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403
    Roger said:

    felix said:

    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    also identical to the Guardian/Daily mirror/ Sun.....
    Have you ever read the Guardian Felix or relying on your intuition?
    I generally read the full range although the Nice-Matin continues to pass me by.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    All papers are biased.
    But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
    No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:

    1. FT
    2. Times
    3. Guardian / “i”
    4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
    5. Telegraph
    6. Express
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    kinabalu said:

    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
    The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
    I agree. I'm not at all a "Guardian reader" in the sense most commonly understood, but its website is a very good source of factual reporting and well written commentary. Its built in left-bias I can discount where necessary.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403

    All papers are biased.
    But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
    No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:

    1. FT
    2. Times
    3. Guardian / “i”
    4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
    5. Telegraph
    6. Express

    The order is entirely subjective of course based on your own belief system.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    felix said:

    All papers are biased.
    But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
    No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:

    1. FT
    2. Times
    3. Guardian / “i”
    4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
    5. Telegraph
    6. Express

    The order is entirely subjective of course based on your own belief system.
    Sure, and I posted it to encourage others to agree or disagree.

    Judging by your posts I’d presume you draw largely from the Express etc.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    All papers are biased.
    But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
    No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:

    1. FT
    2. Times
    3. Guardian / “i”
    4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
    5. Telegraph
    6. Express

    I'm sure PT will be along in a moment to tell you that his preferred paper is, in fact, 100,000% reliable.

  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.

    Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
    Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.
    Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.
    The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularity

    We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.

    Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.

    They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
    We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.
    We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.

    Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.

    Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
    Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.

    What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
    When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.

    I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
    I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.
    The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.

    By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
    100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.

    Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.

    Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?

    Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
    Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.

    It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
    Except PT’s economics are extremely primitive, besides.

    Seamus Mallon famously called the Belfast Agreement, “Sunningdale for slow learners”.

    Brexit is basically trade and labour economics for slow learners.

    Eventually more credulous posters like @DavidL will wake up.

    PT however will be reiterating the same arguments until the heat death of the universe.
    So you claim and yet in the past five years my predictions that were ridiculed at the time have time and again come to pass as being accurate (and where I'm wrong I hold my hand up) whereas on your side of the face predictions have been time and again wrong but people don't admit they were wrong.
  • NEW THREAD


  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.

    Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
    Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.
    Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.
    The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularity

    We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.

    Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.

    They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
    We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.
    We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.

    Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.

    Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
    Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.

    What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
    When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.

    I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
    I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.
    The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.

    By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
    100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.

    Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.

    Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?

    Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
    Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.

    It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
    Except PT’s economics are extremely primitive, besides.

    Seamus Mallon famously called the Belfast Agreement, “Sunningdale for slow learners”.

    Brexit is basically trade and labour economics for slow learners.

    Eventually more credulous posters like @DavidL will wake up.

    PT however will be reiterating the same arguments until the heat death of the universe.
    The arrogance in your post is breathtaking
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693


    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kjh said:

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.

    Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
    Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.
    Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.
    The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularity

    We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.

    Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.

    They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
    We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.
    We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.

    Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.

    Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
    Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.

    What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
    When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.

    I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
    I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.
    The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.

    By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
    100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.

    Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.

    Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?

    Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
    Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.

    It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
    Except PT’s economics are extremely primitive, besides.

    Seamus Mallon famously called the Belfast Agreement, “Sunningdale for slow learners”.

    Brexit is basically trade and labour economics for slow learners.

    Eventually more credulous posters like @DavidL will wake up.

    PT however will be reiterating the same arguments until the heat death of the universe.
    So you claim and yet in the past five years my predictions that were ridiculed at the time have time and again come to pass as being accurate (and where I'm wrong I hold my hand up) whereas on your side of the face predictions have been time and again wrong but people don't admit they were wrong.
    Well we only have your word that your predictions are 10,000% accurate. Personally I can’t be arsed trying to remember every one of your 10,000 posts.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    edited October 2021
    felix said:

    All papers are biased.
    But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
    No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:

    1. FT
    2. Times
    3. Guardian / “i”
    4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
    5. Telegraph
    6. Express

    The order is entirely subjective of course based on your own belief system.
    It really isn't. It is not entirely subjective to say that the FT is more reliable than The Daily Express.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913
    edited October 2021
    Roger said:
    The three main pavilions and the plaza look pretty permanent, the country pavilions are all temporary and will come down next summer after the fair ends. The site was two square miles of pretty much desert, five years ago. There’s also a mall and several apartment blocks, which will form the basis of a new town. They spent billions on road and rail connections.

    It’s not every day that the World’s Fair turns up in your city, and Dubai has exceeded their own ridiculously high standards for architecture. They’ve had half a million visitors, a third of them overseas tourists, through the gates in the first ten days of the six month event.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    PeterC said:

    kinabalu said:

    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
    The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
    I agree. I'm not at all a "Guardian reader" in the sense most commonly understood, but its website is a very good source of factual reporting and well written commentary. Its built in left-bias I can discount where necessary.
    The ICIJ stuff is important investigative journalism and they should be proud of it.
    On the flip side, they've got Owen Jones writing opinion pieces which is just... no.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    Despite Macron’s declaration almost two years ago that French virologists are the best in the world, France still hasn’t got a Covid vaccine to market, never mind a cure for 20 different cancers. Its non-reusable Ariane rocket launcher is obsolete. Its nuclear industry is struggling with vast cost overruns and delay to new projects. Start-ups? Not one French start-up in the past half century has made a global impact. There’s no French Google, Amazon, Facebook or Apple.

    French global leadership in electronics? This is the nation that was 20 years late embracing the Internet, after giving a monopoly on consumer data communication to the nationalised post office and telephone company. Like a Bourbon in a black suit, Macron appears to have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. The unabashed étatisme of his vision suggests that not much will change, other than the deficit, currently at 120 per cent of GDP.....

    So Macron can win, but Macronism is finished. As his latest desperate bout of self-aggrandisement shows, his ability to impose an agenda is at an end.


    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/macron-may-well-win-but-macronism-is-dead
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403

    felix said:

    All papers are biased.
    But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
    No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:

    1. FT
    2. Times
    3. Guardian / “i”
    4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
    5. Telegraph
    6. Express

    The order is entirely subjective of course based on your own belief system.
    Sure, and I posted it to encourage others to agree or disagree.

    Judging by your posts I’d presume you draw largely from the Express etc.
    And like lost of your posts you'd be quite wrong. Heigh ho!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,296
    felix said:

    kinabalu said:

    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
    The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
    Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.
    The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160

    All papers are biased.
    But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
    No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:

    1. FT
    2. Times
    3. Guardian / “i”
    4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
    5. Telegraph
    6. Express

    When it comes to "Arthritis Miracle", "Artic Blasts" or "What Diana would think" the Express is in a league of its own.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    We ought to have had a thread, just to even things up on Starmer being a prat, unable to reverse a lorry without crashing into something. It's a metaphor for his leadership innit??

    More to the point, why was he using up the valuable resource of a lorry and instructor, at a time when there’s an urgent need for more driver training? Thankfully he just hit a light barrier, rather than anything more solid which might have taken the lorry out of service.
    Yes, of course Boris has never taken up the time of valuable resources, such as in the NHS, through publicity stunts, has he?
    That’s a little bit of an unfair way to describe his time in ICU
    LOL , he had a spoonful of oxygen and staff dancing around catering to his every whim. he was in and out in a few days and every one of them showed him smiling etc. Give us a break.
    Any evidence to back that up? All the reports suggest he was in a serious condition.
    well he was showing as fine , then said he needed some oxygen and was discharged a day or so later. I saw someone on maximum oxygen for 3 weeks , that is close to dying. An hour or two on low level oxygen is not near dying as far as I am concerned. @RobD
    Well that's just wrong. He came out of intensive care after three days of treatment, and stayed in hospital for a further three days.

    Apr 7 - Coronavirus: Boris Johnson moved to intensive care as symptoms worsen
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52192604
    Apr 9 - Coronavirus: Boris Johnson out of intensive care but remains in hospital
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-52238276
    Apr 12 - Boris Johnson leaves hospital as he continues recovery from coronavirus
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/12/boris-johnson-leaves-hospital-as-he-continues-recovery-from-coronavirus
    You believe what you like, him walking out after just a few days suggests different to me , he may have been ill and taken a while to recover but was never ever near or within a mile of dying.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,989
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    We ought to have had a thread, just to even things up on Starmer being a prat, unable to reverse a lorry without crashing into something. It's a metaphor for his leadership innit??

    More to the point, why was he using up the valuable resource of a lorry and instructor, at a time when there’s an urgent need for more driver training? Thankfully he just hit a light barrier, rather than anything more solid which might have taken the lorry out of service.
    Yes, of course Boris has never taken up the time of valuable resources, such as in the NHS, through publicity stunts, has he?
    That’s a little bit of an unfair way to describe his time in ICU
    LOL , he had a spoonful of oxygen and staff dancing around catering to his every whim. he was in and out in a few days and every one of them showed him smiling etc. Give us a break.
    Any evidence to back that up? All the reports suggest he was in a serious condition.
    well he was showing as fine , then said he needed some oxygen and was discharged a day or so later. I saw someone on maximum oxygen for 3 weeks , that is close to dying. An hour or two on low level oxygen is not near dying as far as I am concerned. @RobD
    Well that's just wrong. He came out of intensive care after three days of treatment, and stayed in hospital for a further three days.

    Apr 7 - Coronavirus: Boris Johnson moved to intensive care as symptoms worsen
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52192604
    Apr 9 - Coronavirus: Boris Johnson out of intensive care but remains in hospital
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-52238276
    Apr 12 - Boris Johnson leaves hospital as he continues recovery from coronavirus
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/12/boris-johnson-leaves-hospital-as-he-continues-recovery-from-coronavirus
    You believe what you like, him walking out after just a few days suggests different to me , he may have been ill and taken a while to recover but was never ever near or within a mile of dying.
    I mean I've already demonstrated you were wrong. You were claiming he was in and out in a few moments, when the fact of the matter is it was far more serious than you suggest.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    kinabalu said:

    felix said:

    kinabalu said:

    PeterC said:

    RH1992 said:

    PeterC said:

    Jonathan said:

    The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.

    Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
    It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.

    Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
    It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
    The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
    The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
    Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.
    The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.
    The Guardian is absolutely no better than the Mail. The Mail is often quicker on breaking stories.

    Both pander shamelessly to their readers' prejudices, and will trot out lies without breaking a sweat
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    BREAKING: Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been found guilty of one count of harassment against a 59-year-old woman at Westminster Magistrates Court


    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1448316116577705988?s=20
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.

    I don’t think they did.

    The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.

    It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).

    PB Tories are always trying to change history.
    Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.

    "The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.

    In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."

    Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.

    (I voted Remain)
    I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.

    I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.

    Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
    An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.

    What is your reason for not wanting to do it?
    Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.
    Cheers. I thought that might be the case.

    Isn't what one thinks of ones 'self' in 'self governance' subjective. Historically it is GB or UK or England but could equally be Surrey or the EU. As you know I don't have these strong attachments and find them odd, but understand that many do feel strongly about them. I don't feel anymore attachment to a Yorkshireman than Frenchman.
    So you claim and yet you and the Yorkshireman are part of the same body politic, engaged with relatively the same media, debating relatively the same policies and relatively the same parties engaged in that.

    That's not the case with you and the Frenchman - despite the veneer of respectability the EU have tried to do by sticking a European "party" stamp against the real parties names.
    That is true, but that is not my fault. I can't do anything about that. But I don't have an allegiance to the Yorkshireman anymore than the Frenchman (and it wasn't an EU comment, so could equally be a Canadian). As discussed the other day I take people as I find them. Naturally there are characteristics of areas which I enjoy (the English pub for instance) but I don't think that we should be governed based upon that. After all, the regions of the UK have lots of differences, yet most people don't propose separate government for all these regions (I know some do).

    I believe in devolving power to the lowest level possible, but some things need to be at a higher level and I don't see what is so special about the UK as an entity.

    I appreciate and respect CR thinks differently as do many others.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.

    I don’t think they did.

    The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.

    It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).

    PB Tories are always trying to change history.
    Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.

    "The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.

    In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."

    Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.

    (I voted Remain)
    I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.

    I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.

    Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
    An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.

    What is your reason for not wanting to do it?
    Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.
    Cheers. I thought that might be the case.

    Isn't what one thinks of ones 'self' in 'self governance' subjective. Historically it is GB or UK or England but could equally be Surrey or the EU. As you know I don't have these strong attachments and find them odd, but understand that many do feel strongly about them. I don't feel anymore attachment to a Yorkshireman than Frenchman.
    So you claim and yet you and the Yorkshireman are part of the same body politic, engaged with relatively the same media, debating relatively the same policies and relatively the same parties engaged in that.

    That's not the case with you and the Frenchman - despite the veneer of respectability the EU have tried to do by sticking a European "party" stamp against the real parties names.
    I don't see what is so special about the UK as an entity.
    It comes down to "how do I chuck the buggers out?"

    I know how to do that to the UK government.

    How do I do it to the EU Commission and Ursula?
This discussion has been closed.