The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.7K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 41 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 478 Fun & Games
- 139 BA Predictor Threads
- 43 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 324 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 133 Current West Ham
- 209 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 33 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 30 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 431 Match Threads
- 99 MOTM
- 11 West Ham Nostalgia
- 36 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 40 Transfers
- 48 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 56 Internationals
- 49 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 125 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 273 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Your response to my analogy and suggesting if your house were about to fall down you would want to get out immediately whatever the cost is of course natural, but the your house in this analogy wasn't about to fall down at all, the nation had low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment, and the second best economy in Europe, and was rated among the safest in the street by the credit ratings agency.
It had problems still but they were mainly from Tory austerity, which we could have dealt with better from where we sat had we the inclination, May now has decided she has the inclination, but has reduced her ability to do so by brexit.
In your first post you seem to be equating your house to the EU as in - in poor condition but something we are choosing to leave. But then you are describing (in your later post) a house which equates to the UK? And what's more suggesting it is in good condition. If this is the case are you suggesting that we voted to leave the UK. Or are you suggesting the only thing that makes the UK habitable is continued membership of the EU?
They made the best estimate they could within their remit.
They might have been able to be more accurate if the government had supplied them with information they were entitled to, but did not receive.
Perhaps, in the circumstances they should have refused to produce any forecast and stated they had not been supplied with the information they required to produce a meaningful number. This might have helped to reinforce their claimed Independant status - and perhaps done something to help repair their woeful reputation as forecasters ( which isn't particularly good following their pre referendum performance).
you would choose to live in a cold, damp and leaky house. ;biggrin
Also, they made very clear what basis they made their forecasts. Note, it is precisely that - a forecast.
Questioning why the OBR used the parameters they did is a nice way to take attention away from the fact that the govt targets set after the election have been missed, massively. And that the measures since then and just announced, are wholly regressive.
While the future absolute figures are obviously estimates, what isn't affected should the actual figures turn out to be higher or lower is the relative gap between the rich and poor has widened (that's fact), and is set to widen further.
Moreover, the policies and budgetary decisions made by the govt have had, and will continue to have, a greater negative effect on the poorest.
That's saying they could be 50% lower, or 50% higher.
I don't think, therefore, that it is fair to imply they are being biased to present an very negative scenario.
Was really responding to C&B's use of that number (without any reference to its status as a forecast) and making a comparison with a totally hyperthetical number that he plucked from mid air to prove a point.
I never claimed that the figures used in the example of Romanian benefit claimants were correct and as I said before the point was to say if something is costing you £5 but to prevent the cost of wasting that £5 you spend £500 it is a massively false economy. The figures were irrelevant and not proposed as accurate and I think that was made clear. I was not using the figures to represent the points being made as I think the points stand up for themselves, whether they are agreed with of course is another thing but I think what I was saying was clear.
Economic forecasters aren't predicting the future. They themselves are very clear about that. Which is why their figures are always accompanied by a clear statement for all to see of what they are based on (including any assumptions made about, for example inflation rates or the value of sterling). They are in effect saying 'if this happens and that happens' then the result will be X.
Their 'ifs' are openly stated. And the calculations are clear.
Others who think their assumptions are wrong can replace 'if this happens' with 'if something else happens' and come up with a different scenario of what the economy will look like.
i wasn't meaning that it was you alleging bias, or trying to somehow hide the woeful govt record. Just that it is the agenda of some, and the reason for their criticism of the OBR or IFS or whoever.
the proportion of that nominally caused by Brexit is £59bn.
My examples of Romanian issues have absolutely nothing to do with benefit claimants. What I was trying to highlight was a situation whereby current member states are being allowed to transfer their existing and longstanding cultural and economic problems to other member states using the freedom of movement principal. No such reciprocal arrangement exists although I, and others, carrying out short term project work in that country were invited to buy a 'special visa' for circa €2,000.
As to the nationality and EU passporting arrangement - when my company enquired about this (to the EU) they were told this was a long standing arrangement that existed prior to Romania joining and 'it would be looked at in the future when Romania became more integrated'.
Can I respectfully suggest that if you wish to make a point and do not have actual numbers to support that point it's best not to just make some up. Personnally I think your points are well enough made without doing that.
The use of the word hard, as acknowledge on the AM show today by the people on the remain side is a deliberate misdirection to invoke fear, also it was acknowledged that a lot of the experts who predicted doom and gloom are (even though there has been little of it so far) continuing to do so to try and talk it in to happening so they were proved right. There was further acknowledgement that slowly acceptance of the leave vote is happening and the realisation we must work together to get the best deal.
More pressing for the EU are:
Next week Italy has a referendum which the current PM is expected to lose and therefore resign. The vote is to strip the Italian Gov't and senate of numbers and their powers and also making the senate appointed not elected, and giving more sovereign powers to Brussels/Strasbourg - although not that reliable in the UK, ALL the polls in Italy give the current prediction of a 'No' win by between 5 -8% with one predicting more than 55% . If the PM then resigns as he has promised to do so if it is a 'No' it will spark a general election that will be won by a more nationalist PM/Party who will want to claw powers back from the EU.
Then there are both the French and German Elections, not to mention the Turkish problem that has now blown up again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38168942
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/brexit-cost-donald-trump_b_13220674.html
Do we really want this bunch of clowns to decide our future?
*I'm not really amused.
*other emotions are available. And may actually be more accurately what I feel.