|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
I know that's entirely unrelated to economic growth etc, and only a tiny fraction if it pops up anywhere at all, but since i'm personally impacted by it..
Multiple big money RC companies withdrew UK support entirely. Which actually really sucks.
3) The "economic suicide" hasn't been committed yet - Britain is still reaping all the benefits of being "in" EU.
This is btw the biggest thing i hear in pubs. "We voted leave, look, nothing THAT bad happened". No shit sherlock. You haven't left yet. Importing stuff from the US actually has become not viable anymore at all, where not too long ago, even with added import duty, you could get away with buying stuff overseas if you didn't mind waiting longer. Saved you around £100 on certain stuff (in my case RC related). Now we're at the point where a US import will cost me around £100 more than buying it here - if it is even offered, which, well, isn't guaranteed anymore.
|
On March 09 2017 11:09 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 10:38 Ghostcom wrote:On March 09 2017 10:21 bardtown wrote:On March 09 2017 09:35 Ghostcom wrote:On March 09 2017 09:28 bardtown wrote:On March 09 2017 09:21 Ghostcom wrote:On March 08 2017 22:34 bardtown wrote:
Growth revised up (how many times is that now?) from 1.4% to 2% for 2017. Wage growth to outstrip inflation through 2020. Unemployment to fall through 2020. Borrowing to decrease. Increased science funding, especially in emergent fields. Increased education/training funding. Increased social care funding.
Thought this was a very competent budget steering in the right direction and Hammond delivered it well. Even his jabs at Corbyn hit the mark. And if all the macroeconomic predictions prove accurate then Brexit will be a real vindication of the democratic process. Wait until Brexit actually happens before you pop your champagne. Hence ' if all the macroeconomic predictions prove accurate'. Do you think they will? (I realize this sounds loaded, but it's not meant to be - I'm truly curious). Well the fact that they have already been revised up half a dozen times since the referendum shows how well the economic bodies understood the implications of Brexit up to this point. With uncertainty gradually decreasing you would expect the predictions to become more accurate, but the actual negotiations could yet yield any number of outcomes so it would be a mistake to be too confident. That said, the data up to now has been almost invariably positive considering we committed 'economic suicide' and should have been deep in recession by now. Raises a lot of questions about the political neutrality of those bodies and their ability to assess economics relative to the ability of the population that actually make up the economy itself. Hmm, now we are back to my initial statement of don't pop the champagne just yet. 1) I fail to see how revisions now are in any way a good indication of how British economy will do after invoking article 50 2) The uncertainty hasn't really decreased has it? True, we know that there will be a Brexit, but otherwise we are just as much in the dark as we've always been right? 3) The "economic suicide" hasn't been committed yet - Britain is still reaping all the benefits of being "in" EU. Those predictions were for after the vote, not after the exit itself. Markets have already reacted to the vote and the news that we are leaving the single market. They are well hedged for Article 50, and businesses know to prepare for being outside the single market (which means less uncertainty - sterling actually rose on the announcement). If there was going to be some kind of exodus it would be happening now, but in reality there has been almost no change to investment or growth, just devaluation of sterling which was needed anyway. If, as you suggest, uncertainty has not decreased then that would be even better news, because we would be attracting high levels of investment in spite of the uncertainty, meaning that once the uncertainty passed we could expect even greater yields. In other words Brexit would have stimulated growth/investment as opposed to stifling it. I do not believe this is the case, though. Unless negotiations go south then the biggest disjunction has already happened and we are now expecting much more gradual transition which the economic bodies are more likely to predict accurately.
Uh no, that could just as likely mean that the market is a fickle thing and since we are at least a quarter removed from the vote by now people have found other reasons to be positive. You are employing an overly simplistic view.
The bolded is where we fundamentally disagree. I very much doubt that the biggest disjunction has occurred, but only time will tell. For example - I very much doubt that the negotiations will be done in when article 50 is invoked - and I sincerely doubt they will be done within the 2 year (?) time-frame following.
|
On March 09 2017 11:13 m4ini wrote:I know that's entirely unrelated to economic growth etc, and only a tiny fraction if it pops up anywhere at all, but since i'm personally impacted by it.. Multiple big money RC companies withdrew UK support entirely. Which actually really sucks. Show nested quote +3) The "economic suicide" hasn't been committed yet - Britain is still reaping all the benefits of being "in" EU. This is btw the biggest thing i hear in pubs. "We voted leave, look, nothing THAT bad happened". No shit sherlock. You haven't left yet. Importing stuff from the US actually has become not viable anymore at all, where not too long ago, even with added import duty, you could get away with buying stuff overseas if you didn't mind waiting longer. Saved you around £100 on certain stuff (in my case RC related). Now we're at the point where a US import will cost me around £100 more than buying it here - if it is even offered, which, well, isn't guaranteed anymore.
Whats RC?
|
On March 09 2017 14:05 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 11:09 bardtown wrote:On March 09 2017 10:38 Ghostcom wrote:On March 09 2017 10:21 bardtown wrote:On March 09 2017 09:35 Ghostcom wrote:On March 09 2017 09:28 bardtown wrote:On March 09 2017 09:21 Ghostcom wrote:On March 08 2017 22:34 bardtown wrote:
Growth revised up (how many times is that now?) from 1.4% to 2% for 2017. Wage growth to outstrip inflation through 2020. Unemployment to fall through 2020. Borrowing to decrease. Increased science funding, especially in emergent fields. Increased education/training funding. Increased social care funding.
Thought this was a very competent budget steering in the right direction and Hammond delivered it well. Even his jabs at Corbyn hit the mark. And if all the macroeconomic predictions prove accurate then Brexit will be a real vindication of the democratic process. Wait until Brexit actually happens before you pop your champagne. Hence ' if all the macroeconomic predictions prove accurate'. Do you think they will? (I realize this sounds loaded, but it's not meant to be - I'm truly curious). Well the fact that they have already been revised up half a dozen times since the referendum shows how well the economic bodies understood the implications of Brexit up to this point. With uncertainty gradually decreasing you would expect the predictions to become more accurate, but the actual negotiations could yet yield any number of outcomes so it would be a mistake to be too confident. That said, the data up to now has been almost invariably positive considering we committed 'economic suicide' and should have been deep in recession by now. Raises a lot of questions about the political neutrality of those bodies and their ability to assess economics relative to the ability of the population that actually make up the economy itself. Hmm, now we are back to my initial statement of don't pop the champagne just yet. 1) I fail to see how revisions now are in any way a good indication of how British economy will do after invoking article 50 2) The uncertainty hasn't really decreased has it? True, we know that there will be a Brexit, but otherwise we are just as much in the dark as we've always been right? 3) The "economic suicide" hasn't been committed yet - Britain is still reaping all the benefits of being "in" EU. Those predictions were for after the vote, not after the exit itself. Markets have already reacted to the vote and the news that we are leaving the single market. They are well hedged for Article 50, and businesses know to prepare for being outside the single market (which means less uncertainty - sterling actually rose on the announcement). If there was going to be some kind of exodus it would be happening now, but in reality there has been almost no change to investment or growth, just devaluation of sterling which was needed anyway. If, as you suggest, uncertainty has not decreased then that would be even better news, because we would be attracting high levels of investment in spite of the uncertainty, meaning that once the uncertainty passed we could expect even greater yields. In other words Brexit would have stimulated growth/investment as opposed to stifling it. I do not believe this is the case, though. Unless negotiations go south then the biggest disjunction has already happened and we are now expecting much more gradual transition which the economic bodies are more likely to predict accurately. Uh no, that could just as likely mean that the market is a fickle thing and since we are at least a quarter removed from the vote by now people have found other reasons to be positive. You are employing an overly simplistic view. The bolded is where we fundamentally disagree. I very much doubt that the biggest disjunction has occurred, but only time will tell. For example - I very much doubt that the negotiations will be done in when article 50 is invoked - and I sincerely doubt they will be done within the 2 year (?) time-frame following.
Like you say, only time will tell.
|
Good, then you can stop posting selective economic news that bears no relevance.
|
On March 09 2017 20:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Good, then you can stop posting selective economic news that bears no relevance.
Such as? I comment on positive and negative news, but even if I did only post selective news it would be no different from what other posters do and still far more relevant than your ankle biting.
|
Tony Blair's comments regarding Brexit for one, a negative figure to say the least.
Every quote from the telegraph, tabloid news papers. Constant links to how the entire EU is set to implode or that far right populists will win general elections across Europe. Torry sponsored views on Scotland. NI votes from 40 years ago regarding issues of today.
Links to biased graphs that showcase some great surgency in growth, jobs, salaries with no comment when either the sample size is put to question or further information arises proving them to be insignificant.
I'm sure I'm forgetting some things but this is just a starter list for you.
Your constant obssession that the pound losing this much value is in fact a good thing, and that regardless of its' effects it was originally over valued so its either positive or meaningless. Which is simply untrue.
|
Headline news stories are not irrelevant just because you don't like them. What is a politics thread for if not discussing political headlines? There are many economists (including the IMF and the ex-governor of the Bank of England) who argue that a fall in sterling was desirable. I provide arguments and data to support any statement I make, and I post articles from The Guardian as regularly as I do from The Telegraph - I read sources from across the political spectrum and don't find any real value in compartmentalising people with political labels. Calling somebody a Tory is not an argument.
Just because I don't share your views does not mean that my views are irrelevant or the data I post to support them is inapplicable. Quite the opposite, actually. Politics is inherently antagonistic. Antagonistic perspectives hone policy into an effective and moderate middle ground. If you think that there is some data which contradicts an argument that I make then you should show it to me.
|
On March 09 2017 22:47 bardtown wrote:
Headline news stories are not irrelevant just because you don't like them. What is a politics thread for if not discussing political headlines? There are many economists (including the IMF and the ex-governor of the Bank of England) who argue that a fall in sterling was desirable. I provide arguments and data to support any statement I make, and I post articles from The Guardian as regularly as I do from The Telegraph - I read sources from across the political spectrum and don't find any real value in compartmentalising people with political labels. Calling somebody a Tory is not an argument.
Just because I don't share your views does not mean that my views are irrelevant or the data I post to support them is inapplicable. Quite the opposite, actually. Politics is inherently antagonistic. Antagonistic perspectives hone policy into an effective and moderate middle ground. If you think that there is some data which contradicts an argument that I make then you should show it to me.
That one sentence proves how absolutely deluded /insane you are. You are naught but a naive grandparent, out of touch with the real world, living in the past reincarnated with forlorn thoughts to the Empire.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/09/boris-johnson-urges-theresa-may-to-resist-50bn-eu-bill
More brilliant insight from the immature orangoutan with a blond wig. Reminds me of the king of monkeys from the jungle book. I suppose it doesn't top distributing pamphlets highlighting Turkey as a go between for radical islam into Europe and then visiting Turkey to state how ridiculous the EU is being by refusing them all the while being of Turkish decent. But as long as he doesn't go against the wannabe Iron Lady; I'm sure his place is secure.
The UK has never been great with honouring their side of contracts.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/09/late-2018-could-be-best-time-for-new-scottish-referendum-says-sturgeon
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Is there a single sentence in that post that isn't a personal attack or an outright lie? It's hard to tell given the atrocious grammar, but I don't think so.
|
I don't think that my grammar is atrocious. But then I do get confused being capable of speaking 2 languages. I don't really expect you to understand as an ignorant monoglotte.
I also don't see these lies you're referencing
Are you willing to discuss the 1.7bn fraud fine? The Brexit bill? Scotland's 2nd independence vote? No. You will complain about personal attacks by making a comment consisting of.. a personal attack. Sums you up.
|
On March 09 2017 21:22 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 20:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Good, then you can stop posting selective economic news that bears no relevance. Such as? I comment on positive and negative news, but even if I did only post selective news it would be no different from what other posters do and still far more relevant than your ankle biting. Um...what? Have you lost the plot? Can't refute the accusation, so you insult me instead. Typical.
|
On March 11 2017 00:28 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2017 22:47 bardtown wrote:
Headline news stories are not irrelevant just because you don't like them. What is a politics thread for if not discussing political headlines? There are many economists (including the IMF and the ex-governor of the Bank of England) who argue that a fall in sterling was desirable. I provide arguments and data to support any statement I make, and I post articles from The Guardian as regularly as I do from The Telegraph - I read sources from across the political spectrum and don't find any real value in compartmentalising people with political labels. Calling somebody a Tory is not an argument.
Just because I don't share your views does not mean that my views are irrelevant or the data I post to support them is inapplicable. Quite the opposite, actually. Politics is inherently antagonistic. Antagonistic perspectives hone policy into an effective and moderate middle ground. If you think that there is some data which contradicts an argument that I make then you should show it to me. That one sentence proves how absolutely deluded /insane you are. You are naught but a naive grandparent, out of touch with the real world, living in the past reincarnated with forlorn thoughts to the Empire. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/09/boris-johnson-urges-theresa-may-to-resist-50bn-eu-billMore brilliant insight from the immature orangoutan with a blond wig. Reminds me of the king of monkeys from the jungle book. I suppose it doesn't top distributing pamphlets highlighting Turkey as a go between for radical islam into Europe and then visiting Turkey to state how ridiculous the EU is being by refusing them all the while being of Turkish decent. But as long as he doesn't go against the wannabe Iron Lady; I'm sure his place is secure. The UK has never been great with honouring their side of contracts. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/09/late-2018-could-be-best-time-for-new-scottish-referendum-says-sturgeonUser was temp banned for this post.
Great post.
User was warned for this post
|
So Nikola Sturgeon is going to ask for another Scottish referendum; will she get one?
|
United States43538 Posts
On March 13 2017 21:27 farvacola wrote:
So Nikola Sturgeon is going to ask for another Scottish referendum; will she get one?
Unlikely imo. Westminster is strong at the moment, Tories have a firm grip and the previous referendum returned a clear result. Not enough has changed. If it were a minority government like the one preceding this then maybe.
|
|
|
She will get it. But if Brexit is a risk, Scottish independence is relatively much more severe (for Scotland). They have a huge deficit which England pays for and no guarantee that they would be in the EU outside the UK, anyway. It's pretty likely that if there is a new referendum then Spain will take a harder stance against their having any automatic membership. Their case for leaving the UK now is really quite weak, but if the Scots want to do so for ideological reasons then that's a different matter. I can get behind that.
I fluctuate between what I want the result to be because I like having Scotland in the UK, but it would be nice to be rid of the embarrassment that is the SNP.
|
Spain has already back tracked on what they previously stated. Also Spain should try to understand that Scotland is not Catalunia, Scotland was independent 300 years ago, forced into this arrangement.
Polling is at 50% now. During the first referendum it was 28 and then rose to 45.
25% of all food/beverage export revenue comes from Scotland. 90% of water; Scotland. The list goes on but with only 5.2 million people it can easily support itself. Guarantees have been given by the EU already, including further investment into Scotland's infrastructure. Water, oil, tourism, farming, fisheries, whisky, 5.2 million people.
Thing is if they make and bottle whisky in Aberdeenshire but ship it to Liverpool to then export internationally; English media counts this entire business as if it is exporting to England. I just hope the torries continue to antagonise them which is something likely to happen.
I don't see how the SNP is an embarassment vs. T.May or Boris Johnson who every other day contradicts basic logic.
|
On March 13 2017 23:16 MyTHicaL wrote:
Spain has already back tracked on what they previously stated. Also Spain should try to understand that Scotland is not Catalunia, Scotland was independent 300 years ago, forced into this arrangement.
lol, Catalonia only became "Spain" 300 years ago as well. Before then it was a realm which shared a monarch with Aragon and Castille.
Really, the historical argument is a terrible one. Almost all existing national borders today are absolutely arbitrary, based solely around whatever wars and migrations that happened long before any living person's lifetime.
|
What guarantees? If you think the EU is going to lose one of its biggest contributors and simultaneously start investing in infrastructure in a rich country with the biggest deficit in Europe while withdrawing funding from Portugal for having a deficit half as big, I would suggest something doesn't add up.
This has nothing to do with English media. The economic figures are from the Scottish government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
