Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Review : November 23rd 2017

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited November 24 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Review : November 23rd 2017

Perth City South on Perth and Kinross (Con defence)

Read the full story here


Comments

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    first, like LCFC to score!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,622
    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407
    God bless you Grumbolds Ash with Avening. That's not a ward name, it's a children's book about the terrifying yet misunderstood monster the Grumbold Ash and Avening, the oddly named precocious child who reveals his true nature.
  • surbiton said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm pretty sure that even if we stay in the SIngle market via EEA/EFTA, we won't be in the Customs Union.

    Correct, but there could possibly be a different option, which would be to negotiate a customs union with the EU, but not remain in the Single Market (i.e. something akin to what Turkey has).

    My personal view is that this might not have been a bad option; it would make the Irish border problem much easier, and it would mean our car manufacturing industry wouldn't get clobbered by disruption to the supply chain. We wouldn't have had to accept freedom of movement. The downsides would be no trade deals other than those the EU negotiated for its own purposes, and probably nothing on services.

    Of course, no-one can know whether our EU friends would have played ball, since they refused to discuss it at the time when it would have been useful to have the conversation. Too late now, I think, and in any case without a big majority the PM isn't in a position to consider it.
    This is what I have been saying for months. Those who clamour for separate trade deals, what will they actually bring ? FTA with Australia, New Zealand so that our farmers are bankrupted ? What will the USA export to us that we cannot buy now ? What will we export to China that we cannot do so today ?

    Customs Union relieves us of a huge administrative burden. Literally saves billions of pounds annually apart from setting up costs.

    Yep, not being in it only makes sense if we can do better on our own. So, would deals with Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc - and accepting the US regulatory regime in order to get one with the Yanks - make up for what we lose trade-wise by quitting the Customs Union? It's hard to see how that is the case.

    Aus/NZ/Can/USA GDP: $21.5 trn
    EU27 GDP: $15.3 trn

    We have a trade deal with Canada, though, and are about to get one with Japan. Australia is also prioritising a deal with the EU over one with us.

    We don't have one with the USA though do we? The single largest economy in the world that is bigger than the entire EU27 put together.

    We don't have one with China though do we? The world's most populace nation and most significantly growing economy.
  • Mortimer said:

    I'm pretty sure that even if we stay in the SIngle market via EEA/EFTA, we won't be in the Customs Union.

    Correct, but there could possibly be a different option, which would be to negotiate a customs union with the EU, but not remain in the Single Market (i.e. something akin to what Turkey has).

    My personal view is that this might not have been a bad option; it would make the Irish border problem much easier, and it would mean our car manufacturing industry wouldn't get clobbered by disruption to the supply chain. We wouldn't have had to accept freedom of movement. The downsides would be no trade deals other than those the EU negotiated for its own purposes, and probably nothing on services.

    Of course, no-one can know whether our EU friends would have played ball, since they refused to discuss it at the time when it would have been useful to have the conversation. Too late now, I think, and in any case without a big majority the PM isn't in a position to consider it.
    I think that is completely the wrong way around. Staying in the Customs Union removes any ability to make our own trade deals but does not give us access to the Single Market. It is the very worst of solutions.

    Doesn't that depend on what kind of trade deals we could negotiate by not being in the Customs Union?

    Of all the non-European nations in the world with bigger economies than ours, Australia has a free trade deal with them all. We have a free trade deal with none of them.

    I am pretty sure we are about to have one with Japan.

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,195

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    An error in the Wakefield result which actually saw a 2.5% swing from Lab to Con!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407
    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,195
    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
    Yes - he's great at soft-spokenness, and therefore it's odd that he chose the rabid-old-man look for the budget. He's either ill and not paying attention, or there's some baffling game.

    'Revolutionary' does involve a shouty pitch - I wonder.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    Mortimer said:

    I'm pretty sure that even if we stay in the SIngle market via EEA/EFTA, we won't be in the Customs Union.

    Correct, but there could possibly be a different option, which would be to negotiate a customs union with the EU, but not remain in the Single Market (i.e. something akin to what Turkey has).

    My personal view is that this might not have been a bad option; it would make the Irish border problem much easier, and it would mean our car manufacturing industry wouldn't get clobbered by disruption to the supply chain. We wouldn't have had to accept freedom of movement. The downsides would be no trade deals other than those the EU negotiated for its own purposes, and probably nothing on services.

    Of course, no-one can know whether our EU friends would have played ball, since they refused to discuss it at the time when it would have been useful to have the conversation. Too late now, I think, and in any case without a big majority the PM isn't in a position to consider it.
    I think that is completely the wrong way around. Staying in the Customs Union removes any ability to make our own trade deals but does not give us access to the Single Market. It is the very worst of solutions.

    Doesn't that depend on what kind of trade deals we could negotiate by not being in the Customs Union?

    Of all the non-European nations in the world with bigger economies than ours, Australia has a free trade deal with them all. We have a free trade deal with none of them.

    I am pretty sure we are about to have one with Japan.

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,254
    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
    Yes - he's great at soft-spokenness, and therefore it's odd that he chose the rabid-old-man look for the budget. He's either ill and not paying attention, or there's some baffling game.

    'Revolutionary' does involve a shouty pitch - I wonder.
    He was angry. He was showing passion. He was also trying to make himself heard over the baying from the Tory benches. He wouldn't do that in a TV interview.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407
    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
    Yes - he's great at soft-spokenness, and therefore it's odd that he chose the rabid-old-man look for the budget. He's either ill and not paying attention, or there's some baffling game.

    'Revolutionary' does involve a shouty pitch - I wonder.
    He was angry. He was showing passion. He was also trying to make himself heard over the baying from the Tory benches. He wouldn't do that in a TV interview.
    He's angry, passionate and faces baying in the commons all the time, or at least not infrequently. I don't think there's anything serious in it, but it is demonstrably not the case that he always gets shouty when passionate, angry and facing baying from the government benches, so it was a choice.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,195
    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
    Yes - he's great at soft-spokenness, and therefore it's odd that he chose the rabid-old-man look for the budget. He's either ill and not paying attention, or there's some baffling game.

    'Revolutionary' does involve a shouty pitch - I wonder.
    He was angry. He was showing passion. He was also trying to make himself heard over the baying from the Tory benches. He wouldn't do that in a TV interview.
    He was not angry. Or at least not more angry. You know that's true, so let's not argue this. However he did seem angry. He did that deliberately. I can't fathom why.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    A spectacular gain for the Greens in Herefordshire.

    (I only point this out to be in the good books of my other half!)
  • Jezza lost it under pressure. Not good from someone who aspires to be PM.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756
    Jonathan said:
    What a tedious cartoon.

    A better analogy might be our need to chew our own arm off because we've been surgically attached, human centipede like, to some 27 headed beast without our consent.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,925

    Jezza lost it under pressure. Not good from someone who aspires to be PM.

    I disagree having watched the clip - the subject matter being discussed makes the braying of the Tory benches... unbecoming I'm afraid.
    The clip will work well enough for Jezza. And I am no fan of his.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    Pulpstar said:

    Jezza lost it under pressure. Not good from someone who aspires to be PM.

    I disagree having watched the clip - the subject matter being discussed makes the braying of the Tory benches... unbecoming I'm afraid.
    The clip will work well enough for Jezza. And I am no fan of his.
    Beingg angry over austerity and UC delays is not a bad look.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,195
    edited November 24

    Jezza lost it under pressure. Not good from someone who aspires to be PM.

    He was told to lose it, and he was told to wear what he did. There's a lot of Jezza under the hood, but nothing that he does gets out. The bulk of the message is the true Jezza though.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    Good result for Labour in Rutherglen which confirms my view that 20 gains from the SNP are likely next time.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,254
    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
    Yes - he's great at soft-spokenness, and therefore it's odd that he chose the rabid-old-man look for the budget. He's either ill and not paying attention, or there's some baffling game.

    'Revolutionary' does involve a shouty pitch - I wonder.
    He was angry. He was showing passion. He was also trying to make himself heard over the baying from the Tory benches. He wouldn't do that in a TV interview.
    He was not angry. Or at least not more angry. You know that's true, so let's not argue this. However he did seem angry. He did that deliberately. I can't fathom why.

    He did it to show passion. He could have answered calmly and analytically. But he was channelling the angry feelings of a lot of people about the pain and destruction Tory economic policies have wrought and will continue to wreak.

    Personally, I would have calmly focused on the awful growth projections following seven years of the "long term economic plan" and gently ridiculed him and his party. Then I would have finished with the angry bit about more extra money for Brexit than for the NHS.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,925
    Scott_P said:
    Not a word on the terror attack in Egypt. Poor.
  • kyf_100 said:

    Jonathan said:
    What a tedious cartoon.

    A better analogy might be our need to chew our own arm off because we've been surgically attached, human centipede like, to some 27 headed beast without our consent.
    Can we assume that this Canadian cartoonist supports an American Union where Canada gives financial contributions and legal primacy to a government based in Bogota and accepts unlimited immigration from any country in the American continents ?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937

    kyf_100 said:

    Jonathan said:
    What a tedious cartoon.

    A better analogy might be our need to chew our own arm off because we've been surgically attached, human centipede like, to some 27 headed beast without our consent.
    Can we assume that this Canadian cartoonist supports an American Union where Canada gives financial contributions and legal primacy to a government based in Bogota and accepts unlimited immigration from any country in the American continents ?
    Dunno. It is extremely funny, though.
  • Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
    Yes - he's great at soft-spokenness, and therefore it's odd that he chose the rabid-old-man look for the budget. He's either ill and not paying attention, or there's some baffling game.

    'Revolutionary' does involve a shouty pitch - I wonder.
    He was angry. He was showing passion. He was also trying to make himself heard over the baying from the Tory benches. He wouldn't do that in a TV interview.
    He was not angry. Or at least not more angry. You know that's true, so let's not argue this. However he did seem angry. He did that deliberately. I can't fathom why.

    He did it to show passion. He could have answered calmly and analytically. But he was channelling the angry feelings of a lot of people about the pain and destruction Tory economic policies have wrought and will continue to wreak.

    Personally, I would have calmly focused on the awful growth projections following seven years of the "long term economic plan" and gently ridiculed him and his party. Then I would have finished with the angry bit about more extra money for Brexit than for the NHS.
    Showing anger about injustice is fine.

    But he'll need to back that up with ideas on how to reform things.

    Its ironic that the Conservatives will have pissed so much borrowed money away on vanity projects and got so many people addicted to government handouts that there will be little scope left for Labour to promise spending which adds up.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Jonathan said:
    What a tedious cartoon.

    A better analogy might be our need to chew our own arm off because we've been surgically attached, human centipede like, to some 27 headed beast without our consent.
    Can we assume that this Canadian cartoonist supports an American Union where Canada gives financial contributions and legal primacy to a government based in Bogota and accepts unlimited immigration from any country in the American continents ?
    Dunno. It is extremely funny, though.
    But not original.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,366
    Ishmael_Z said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Jonathan said:
    What a tedious cartoon.

    A better analogy might be our need to chew our own arm off because we've been surgically attached, human centipede like, to some 27 headed beast without our consent.
    Can we assume that this Canadian cartoonist supports an American Union where Canada gives financial contributions and legal primacy to a government based in Bogota and accepts unlimited immigration from any country in the American continents ?
    Dunno. It is extremely funny, though.
    Also nicely drawn, which is important.
  • Mortimer said:

    I'm pretty sure that even if we stay in the SIngle market via EEA/EFTA, we won't be in the Customs Union.

    Correct, but there could possibly be a different option, which would be to negotiate a customs union with the EU, but not remain in the Single Market (i.e. something akin to what Turkey has).

    My personal view is that this might not have been a bad option; it would make the Irish border problem much easier, and it would mean our car manufacturing industry wouldn't get clobbered by disruption to the supply chain. We wouldn't have had to accept freedom of movement. The downsides would be no trade deals other than those the EU negotiated for its own purposes, and probably nothing on services.

    Of course, no-one can know whether our EU friends would have played ball, since they refused to discuss it at the time when it would have been useful to have the conversation. Too late now, I think, and in any case without a big majority the PM isn't in a position to consider it.
    I think that is completely the wrong way around. Staying in the Customs Union removes any ability to make our own trade deals but does not give us access to the Single Market. It is the very worst of solutions.

    Doesn't that depend on what kind of trade deals we could negotiate by not being in the Customs Union?

    Of all the non-European nations in the world with bigger economies than ours, Australia has a free trade deal with them all. We have a free trade deal with none of them.

    I am pretty sure we are about to have one with Japan.

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    Mortimer said:

    I'm pretty sure that even if we stay in the SIngle market via EEA/EFTA, we won't be in the Customs Union.

    Correct, but there could possibly be a different option, which would be to negotiate a customs union with the EU, but not remain in the Single Market (i.e. something akin to what Turkey has).

    My personal view is that this might not have been a bad option; it would make the Irish border problem much easier, and it would mean our car manufacturing industry wouldn't get clobbered by disruption to the supply chain. We wouldn't have had to accept freedom of movement. The downsides would be no trade deals other than those the EU negotiated for its own purposes, and probably nothing on services.

    Of course, no-one can know whether our EU friends would have played ball, since they refused to discuss it at the time when it would have been useful to have the conversation. Too late now, I think, and in any case without a big majority the PM isn't in a position to consider it.
    I think that is completely the wrong way around. Staying in the Customs Union removes any ability to make our own trade deals but does not give us access to the Single Market. It is the very worst of solutions.

    Doesn't that depend on what kind of trade deals we could negotiate by not being in the Customs Union?

    Of all the non-European nations in the world with bigger economies than ours, Australia has a free trade deal with them all. We have a free trade deal with none of them.

    I am pretty sure we are about to have one with Japan.

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,195

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
    Yes - he's great at soft-spokenness, and therefore it's odd that he chose the rabid-old-man look for the budget. He's either ill and not paying attention, or there's some baffling game.

    'Revolutionary' does involve a shouty pitch - I wonder.
    He was angry. He was showing passion. He was also trying to make himself heard over the baying from the Tory benches. He wouldn't do that in a TV interview.
    He was not angry. Or at least not more angry. You know that's true, so let's not argue this. However he did seem angry. He did that deliberately. I can't fathom why.

    He did it to show passion. He could have answered calmly and analytically. But he was channelling the angry feelings of a lot of people about the pain and destruction Tory economic policies have wrought and will continue to wreak.

    Personally, I would have calmly focused on the awful growth projections following seven years of the "long term economic plan" and gently ridiculed him and his party. Then I would have finished with the angry bit about more extra money for Brexit than for the NHS.
    Showing anger about injustice is fine.

    But he'll need to back that up with ideas on how to reform things.

    Its ironic that the Conservatives will have pissed so much borrowed money away on vanity projects and got so many people addicted to government handouts that there will be little scope left for Labour to promise spending which adds up.
    The last paragraph isn't really right though is it. In fact it's almost diametrically away from the truth.
  • If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    If like me you're a believer in free trade then we both win so should get a deal with the USA.

    If you don't believe in free trade then our major trade imbalance with Europe would show we lose so should leave the deal with the EU.

    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
  • Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
    Yes - he's great at soft-spokenness, and therefore it's odd that he chose the rabid-old-man look for the budget. He's either ill and not paying attention, or there's some baffling game.

    'Revolutionary' does involve a shouty pitch - I wonder.
    He was angry. He was showing passion. He was also trying to make himself heard over the baying from the Tory benches. He wouldn't do that in a TV interview.
    He was not angry. Or at least not more angry. You know that's true, so let's not argue this. However he did seem angry. He did that deliberately. I can't fathom why.

    He did it to show passion. He could have answered calmly and analytically. But he was channelling the angry feelings of a lot of people about the pain and destruction Tory economic policies have wrought and will continue to wreak.

    Personally, I would have calmly focused on the awful growth projections following seven years of the "long term economic plan" and gently ridiculed him and his party. Then I would have finished with the angry bit about more extra money for Brexit than for the NHS.
    Showing anger about injustice is fine.

    But he'll need to back that up with ideas on how to reform things.

    Its ironic that the Conservatives will have pissed so much borrowed money away on vanity projects and got so many people addicted to government handouts that there will be little scope left for Labour to promise spending which adds up.
    What government handouts have the Tories got people addicted to in particular?

  • That article you linked to this morning about oil jobs / technolgy / productivity was very interesting.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    If like me you're a believer in free trade then we both win so should get a deal with the USA.

    If you don't believe in free trade then our major trade imbalance with Europe would show we lose so should leave the deal with the EU.

    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
  • If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    If like me you're a believer in free trade then we both win so should get a deal with the USA.

    If you don't believe in free trade then our major trade imbalance with Europe would show we lose so should leave the deal with the EU.

    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
    So you're suggesting trading on WTO terms won't hold us back?

    Seems like a lot of cake and eating it with you. If that's the case why would it hold us back to leave the EU?
  • Here's a PB what if:

    What if SeanT doesn't see a program about Gobekli Tepe (see Ch5 now) and go on to become Tom Knox.

    How does PB develop with a failed SeanT commenting here ?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328


    That article you linked to this morning about oil jobs / technolgy / productivity was very interesting.
    Amongst the rubbish there is some interesting stuff on twitter.

    https://medium.com/basic-income/the-real-story-of-automation-beginning-with-one-simple-chart-8b95f9bad71b
  • Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Omnium said:

    Not much of interest there, really, especially given the low turnouts. But many thanks to Harry for keeping track.

    Are there some Labour goings on about to become news Mr P? The great leader-to-be was very 'shouty'. Lot's of comments about 'shouty' quite generally - just conversationally. Somehow he chose to adopt that style.

    I really can't work out why, but I'm sure I can see the cogs.

    It's not his best style, frankly. I recall being a little surprised in his initial victory speech that after a campaign of very soft spokenness he adopted a more shouty approach. It made sense, time for a rousing victory speech and all that, but I don't think it is his best.
    Yes - he's great at soft-spokenness, and therefore it's odd that he chose the rabid-old-man look for the budget. He's either ill and not paying attention, or there's some baffling game.

    'Revolutionary' does involve a shouty pitch - I wonder.
    He was angry. He was showing passion. He was also trying to make himself heard over the baying from the Tory benches. He wouldn't do that in a TV interview.
    He was not angry. Or at least not more angry. You know that's true, so let's not argue this. However he did seem angry. He did that deliberately. I can't fathom why.

    He did it to show passion. He could have answered calmly and analytically. But he was channelling the angry feelings of a lot of people about the pain and destruction Tory economic policies have wrought and will continue to wreak.

    Personally, I would have calmly focused on the awful growth projections following seven years of the "long term economic plan" and gently ridiculed him and his party. Then I would have finished with the angry bit about more extra money for Brexit than for the NHS.
    Showing anger about injustice is fine.

    But he'll need to back that up with ideas on how to reform things.

    Its ironic that the Conservatives will have pissed so much borrowed money away on vanity projects and got so many people addicted to government handouts that there will be little scope left for Labour to promise spending which adds up.
    What government handouts have the Tories got people addicted to in particular?
    Triple lock pensions.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Jonathan said:
    What a tedious cartoon.

    A better analogy might be our need to chew our own arm off because we've been surgically attached, human centipede like, to some 27 headed beast without our consent.
    Can we assume that this Canadian cartoonist supports an American Union where Canada gives financial contributions and legal primacy to a government based in Bogota and accepts unlimited immigration from any country in the American continents ?
    Dunno. It is extremely funny, though.
    Also nicely drawn, which is important.
    Yes, it ticks most of the boxes for a good cartoon.

    It's witty, concise, well-drawn and contains an element of truth. Of course if you don't like the politics, it's unlikely to appeal, but as a cartoon it's pretty good.

    Interesting that it was done by a Canadian for a canadian audience. Not sure that Canadians would have any dog in the fight.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    If like me you're a believer in free trade then we both win so should get a deal with the USA.

    If you don't believe in free trade then our major trade imbalance with Europe would show we lose so should leave the deal with the EU.

    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
    So you're suggesting trading on WTO terms won't hold us back?

    Seems like a lot of cake and eating it with you. If that's the case why would it hold us back to leave the EU?
    No, I do not predict catastrophe with Brexit, just slow and steady decline.

    Free Trade is an expression of geopolitical dominance, where the powerful marginalise the weak.

    We benefited by the Royal Navy forcing our way into makets, not something we will be able to do so again.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Jonathan said:
    What a tedious cartoon.

    A better analogy might be our need to chew our own arm off because we've been surgically attached, human centipede like, to some 27 headed beast without our consent.
    Can we assume that this Canadian cartoonist supports an American Union where Canada gives financial contributions and legal primacy to a government based in Bogota and accepts unlimited immigration from any country in the American continents ?
    Dunno. It is extremely funny, though.
    Also nicely drawn, which is important.
    Yes, it ticks most of the boxes for a good cartoon.

    It's witty, concise, well-drawn and contains an element of truth. Of course if you don't like the politics, it's unlikely to appeal, but as a cartoon it's pretty good.

    Interesting that it was done by a Canadian for a canadian audience. Not sure that Canadians would have any dog in the fight.
    He's no Ben Garrison...

    https://grrrgraphics.com/abandon-ship-brexit-great-britains-escape-from-the-eu/
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,254

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    If like me you're a believer in free trade then we both win so should get a deal with the USA.

    If you don't believe in free trade then our major trade imbalance with Europe would show we lose so should leave the deal with the EU.

    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    60% of our exports are already to the big wide world outside the EU.

    The average tariff across all countries is 2.6%. For the US it is 2.7%.

    Suppose we did a FTA with the US to reduce the 2.6% tariff to zero. Would that benefit us as much as the 15% depreciation of sterling since the EU Ref? It would make relatively little difference.

    What matters much more are the standards.

    In general, US standards are designed to help producers. You can sell anything unless it is proven to be unsafe. EU standards are designed to help consumers. You can only sell things that are proven to be safe.

    We have a choice between the US model and the EU model. I choose the EU model.
  • If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    If like me you're a believer in free trade then we both win so should get a deal with the USA.

    If you don't believe in free trade then our major trade imbalance with Europe would show we lose so should leave the deal with the EU.

    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
    So you're suggesting trading on WTO terms won't hold us back?

    Seems like a lot of cake and eating it with you. If that's the case why would it hold us back to leave the EU?
    No, I do not predict catastrophe with Brexit, just slow and steady decline.

    Free Trade is an expression of geopolitical dominance, where the powerful marginalise the weak.

    We benefited by the Royal Navy forcing our way into makets, not something we will be able to do so again.
    If that's your view then are we being marginalised by the EU which is why we have such a mammoth trade deficit in your eyes? Or is our trade deficit an expresion of our dominance?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,525
    justin124 said:

    Good result for Labour in Rutherglen which confirms my view that 20 gains from the SNP are likely next time.

    I think it will be around 25.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756

    Here's a PB what if:

    What if SeanT doesn't see a program about Gobekli Tepe (see Ch5 now) and go on to become Tom Knox.

    How does PB develop with a failed SeanT commenting here ?

    Failure?

    He'd still have his bad sex award to fall back on.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/30/books.booksnews1

    I've had a lot of bad sex but nobody ever gave me an award for it...
  • Barnesian said:

    60% of our exports are already to the big wide world outside the EU.

    The average tariff across all countries is 2.6%. For the US it is 2.7%.

    Suppose we did a FTA with the US to reduce the 2.6% tariff to zero. Would that benefit us as much as the 15% depreciation of sterling since the EU Ref? It would make relatively little difference.

    What matters much more are the standards.

    In general, US standards are designed to help producers. You can sell anything unless it is proven to be unsafe. EU standards are designed to help consumers. You can only sell things that are proven to be safe.

    We have a choice between the US model and the EU model. I choose the EU model.

    Over 60% of our exports and rising despite the fact we don't have trade deals with them. The big wide world outside the EU makes up over 80% and growing of global GDP and over 93% of the world population. We have far more potential to grow with the rest of the world don't we?

    In general your claim is nonsense. The Americans have vigorous testing standards where they're required too, see for example the FDA where it can take a very long time to get drug approval.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,254
    edited November 24

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
    So you're suggesting trading on WTO terms won't hold us back?

    Seems like a lot of cake and eating it with you. If that's the case why would it hold us back to leave the EU?
    No, I do not predict catastrophe with Brexit, just slow and steady decline.

    Free Trade is an expression of geopolitical dominance, where the powerful marginalise the weak.

    We benefited by the Royal Navy forcing our way into makets, not something we will be able to do so again.
    If that's your view then are we being marginalised by the EU which is why we have such a mammoth trade deficit in your eyes? Or is our trade deficit an expresion of our dominance?
    It is very odd how the key metric has changed over the years from "the balance of payments" to "the deficit". Movements in the balance of payments could bring down governments. They were watched avidly. Now they seem to be ignored because it suited Osborne and the Tory narrative to focus on the deficit.

    The "deficit" is a bit like the P&L. It is an accounting fiction. You can juggle it by putting things off balance sheet (PFI), balancing debt against dubious assets (student loans) and altering definitions (housing association debt). Hammond has pulled his conjuring trick on the deficit by planning to sell billion of RBS shares (at a big loss).

    The "balance of payments" on the other hand is like the cash flow statement. It is more difficult to fudge.

    Bottom line is - if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, the balance of payments and trade deficit (I know they are not identical) would not be in the mess that they are. They are much less sustainable than the deficit.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,411
    edited November 24
    Barnesian said:



    Yes.

    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
    So you're suggesting trading on WTO terms won't hold us back?

    Seems like a lot of cake and eating it with you. If that's the case why would it hold us back to leave the EU?
    No, I do not predict catastrophe with Brexit, just slow and steady decline.

    Free Trade is an expression of geopolitical dominance, where the powerful marginalise the weak.

    We benefited by the Royal Navy forcing our way into makets, not something we will be able to do so again.
    If that's your view then are we being marginalised by the EU which is why we have such a mammoth trade deficit in your eyes? Or is our trade deficit an expresion of our dominance?
    It is very odd how the key metric has changed over the years from "the balance of payments" to "the deficit". Movements in the balance of payments could bring down governments. They were watched avidly. Now they seem to be ignored because it suited Osborne and the Tory narrative to focus on the deficit.

    The "deficit" is a bit like the P&L. It is an accounting fiction. You can juggle it by putting things off balance sheet (PFI), balancing debt against dubious assets (student loans) and altering definitions (housing association debt). Hammond has pulled his conjuring trick on the deficit by planning to sell billion of RBS shares (at a big loss).

    The "balance of payments" on the other hand is like the cash flow statement. It is more difficult to fudge.

    Bottom line is - if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, the balance of payments and trade deficit (I know they are not identical) would not be in the mess that they are. They are much less sustainable than the deficit.
    Weren't they talking about the trade deficit, not the budget deficit?
    Edit: Ah, I think I misunderstood your comment.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,254
    edited November 24
    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
    So you're suggesting trading on WTO terms won't hold us back?

    Seems like a lot of cake and eating it with you. If that's the case why would it hold us back to leave the EU?
    It is very odd how the key metric has changed over the years from "the balance of payments" to "the deficit". Movements in the balance of payments could bring down governments. They were watched avidly. Now they seem to be ignored because it suited Osborne and the Tory narrative to focus on the deficit.

    The "deficit" is a bit like the P&L. It is an accounting fiction. You can juggle it by putting things off balance sheet (PFI), balancing debt against dubious assets (student loans) and altering definitions (housing association debt). Hammond has pulled his conjuring trick on the deficit by planning to sell billion of RBS shares (at a big loss).

    The "balance of payments" on the other hand is like the cash flow statement. It is more difficult to fudge.

    Bottom line is - if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, the balance of payments and trade deficit (I know they are not identical) would not be in the mess that they are. They are much less sustainable than the deficit.
    Weren't they talking about the trade deficit, not the budget deficit?
    Yes. The trade deficit is highly correlated with the balance of payments. It is really important, difficult to fudge and we have stopped focusing on it so it is out of control.

    The budget deficit is mainly a fiction but that's all we focus on.

    That was the point I was making. I should have said "budget deficit" instead of "deficit" to avoid confusion with "trade deficit".
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,411
    @Barnesian - you were too quick for me. I think I misunderstood your point - sorry about that!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970

    Barnesian said:

    60% of our exports are already to the big wide world outside the EU.

    The average tariff across all countries is 2.6%. For the US it is 2.7%.

    Suppose we did a FTA with the US to reduce the 2.6% tariff to zero. Would that benefit us as much as the 15% depreciation of sterling since the EU Ref? It would make relatively little difference.

    What matters much more are the standards.

    In general, US standards are designed to help producers. You can sell anything unless it is proven to be unsafe. EU standards are designed to help consumers. You can only sell things that are proven to be safe.

    We have a choice between the US model and the EU model. I choose the EU model.

    Over 60% of our exports and rising despite the fact we don't have trade deals with them. The big wide world outside the EU makes up over 80% and growing of global GDP and over 93% of the world population. We have far more potential to grow with the rest of the world don't we?

    In general your claim is nonsense. The Americans have vigorous testing standards where they're required too, see for example the FDA where it can take a very long time to get drug approval.
    "...where they're required too... [or to...?]"

    Either way isn't that the point? The KBG had a good record on human rights where they were required to.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,778
    Interesting seat in Dover-a straight Con-Lab fight and 25% Ukip vote split 17-8 Con -Lab.That's about a 2-1 split for the ex ukippers to the Tories.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970

    Interesting seat in Dover-a straight Con-Lab fight and 25% Ukip vote split 17-8 Con -Lab.That's about a 2-1 split for the ex ukippers to the Tories.

    What about Eyres Monsell? Looks like the UKIP vote went entirely to Lib Dems and Lab! I suspect it's actually more complex than that.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,254

    Barnesian said:

    60% of our exports are already to the big wide world outside the EU.

    The average tariff across all countries is 2.6%. For the US it is 2.7%.

    Suppose we did a FTA with the US to reduce the 2.6% tariff to zero. Would that benefit us as much as the 15% depreciation of sterling since the EU Ref? It would make relatively little difference.

    What matters much more are the standards.

    In general, US standards are designed to help producers. You can sell anything unless it is proven to be unsafe. EU standards are designed to help consumers. You can only sell things that are proven to be safe.

    We have a choice between the US model and the EU model. I choose the EU model.

    Over 60% of our exports and rising despite the fact we don't have trade deals with them. The big wide world outside the EU makes up over 80% and growing of global GDP and over 93% of the world population. We have far more potential to grow with the rest of the world don't we?

    In general your claim is nonsense. The Americans have vigorous testing standards where they're required too, see for example the FDA where it can take a very long time to get drug approval.
    We can grow with both. We are better able to negotiate favourable trade deals with the rest of the world using the weight of the EU than on our own.

    The issue of trade deals is no longer the tariffs (in general). It is the standards. We have been warned that we have to choose between US standards or EU standards if we want a trade deal with the US. Choosing US standards will damage our trade with the EU. The EU accounts for 40% of our exports, the US 15%.

    A big problem with US standards is their food standards. They have conducted an enormous experiment on their population with GM food when the long term effects were unknown. Luckily it seems to be OK but it was a risk for the population. They are taking a similar risk with the massive overuse of corn syrup and also growth hormones in their meat. It is showing up in a big obesity problem and a three year lower life expectancy compared with Europe.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 847

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    If like me you're a believer in free trade then we both win so should get a deal with the USA.

    If you don't believe in free trade then our major trade imbalance with Europe would show we lose so should leave the deal with the EU.

    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
    So you're suggesting trading on WTO terms won't hold us back?

    Seems like a lot of cake and eating it with you. If that's the case why would it hold us back to leave the EU?
    No, I do not predict catastrophe with Brexit, just slow and steady decline.

    Free Trade is an expression of geopolitical dominance, where the powerful marginalise the weak.

    We benefited by the Royal Navy forcing our way into makets, not something we will be able to do so again.

    In real life the people who voted for Brexit don't have any interest in free trade. Its was all about a) stopping immigration and b) having control of our own laws. Most people dont have any idea of how global trade works.They don't know and don't care about free trade. There is no mandate for free trade, most people would probably vote for protectionism anyway if it the government were stupid enough to put free trade to a referendum.



  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    nielh said:

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Tell me why you think its acceptable that unlike Aus we don't have a free trade deal with the largest economy in the world that is closer to us geographically than it is to Australia? With an economy bigger than the entire EU27 put together?
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    If like me you're a believer in free trade then we both win so should get a deal with the USA.

    If you don't believe in free trade then our major trade imbalance with Europe would show we lose so should leave the deal with the EU.

    Either way I fail to see why we should abandon our hopes of a deal with America in order to cling to just Europe? Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
    So you're suggesting trading on WTO terms won't hold us back?

    Seems like a lot of cake and eating it with you. If that's the case why would it hold us back to leave the EU?
    No, I do not predict catastrophe with Brexit, just slow and steady decline.

    Free Trade is an expression of geopolitical dominance, where the powerful marginalise the weak.

    We benefited by the Royal Navy forcing our way into makets, not something we will be able to do so again.

    In real life the people who voted for Brexit don't have any interest in free trade. Its was all about a) stopping immigration and b) having control of our own laws. Most people dont have any idea of how global trade works.They don't know and don't care about free trade. There is no mandate for free trade, most people would probably vote for protectionism anyway if it the government were stupid enough to put free trade to a referendum.
    Well said!
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,195
    Barnesian said:

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.
    So you're suggesting trading on WTO terms won't hold us back?

    Seems like a lot of cake and eating it with you. If that's the case why would it hold us back to leave the EU?
    We benefited by the Royal Navy forcing our way into makets, not something we will be able to do so again.
    If that's your view then are we being marginalised by the EU which is why we have such a mammoth trade deficit in your eyes? Or is our trade deficit an expresion of our dominance?
    It is very odd how the key metric has changed over the years from "the balance of payments" to "the deficit". Movements in the balance of payments could bring down governments. They were watched avidly. Now they seem to be ignored because it suited Osborne and the Tory narrative to focus on the deficit.

    The "deficit" is a bit like the P&L. It is an accounting fiction. You can juggle it by putting things off balance sheet (PFI), balancing debt against dubious assets (student loans) and altering definitions (housing association debt). Hammond has pulled his conjuring trick on the deficit by planning to sell billion of RBS shares (at a big loss).

    The "balance of payments" on the other hand is like the cash flow statement. It is more difficult to fudge.

    Bottom line is - if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, the balance of payments and trade deficit (I know they are not identical) would not be in the mess that they are. They are much less sustainable than the deficit.
    A very good post.

    The deficit is quite real though in that it adds to our debt, and our debt is something we'll have to pay interest on tomorrow and every day until it's paid off. If your accounting fiction doesn't charge you then maybe it is a fiction. We will pay every penny of our very real debt obligations.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:

    Good result for Labour in Rutherglen which confirms my view that 20 gains from the SNP are likely next time.

    I think it will be around 25.
    You may well be correct!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:

    If we replicated the deals the Aussies have, would they leave us in a better position than the one we have now as part of the Customs Union?

    Yes.
    Yep. The Chinese really cannot get enough of our iron ore.
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    Why should we be Little Europeans when there's a big world out there?
    Germany exports loads to China and the USA while in the EU.
    Perhaps it is not the EU holding us back.


    It is very odd how the key metric has changed over the years from "the balance of payments" to "the deficit". Movements in the balance of payments could bring down governments. They were watched avidly. Now they seem to be ignored because it suited Osborne and the Tory narrative to focus on the deficit.

    The "deficit" is a bit like the P&L. It is an accounting fiction. You can juggle it by putting things off balance sheet (PFI), balancing debt against dubious assets (student loans) and altering definitions (housing association debt). Hammond has pulled his conjuring trick on the deficit by planning to sell billion of RBS shares (at a big loss).

    The "balance of payments" on the other hand is like the cash flow statement. It is more difficult to fudge.

    Bottom line is - if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, the balance of payments and trade deficit (I know they are not identical) would not be in the mess that they are. They are much less sustainable than the deficit.
    A very good post.

    The deficit is quite real though in that it adds to our debt, and our debt is something we'll have to pay interest on tomorrow and every day until it's paid off. If your accounting fiction doesn't charge you then maybe it is a fiction. We will pay every penny of our very real debt obligations.
    But our National Debt is much smaller in relation to GDP than for 20 years following World War 2. We were able to cope with that burden for many years - why should it be so different now?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,254
    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:



    Yes.
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    It is very odd how the key metric has changed over the years from "the balance of payments" to "the deficit". Movements in the balance of payments could bring down governments. They were watched avidly. Now they seem to be ignored because it suited Osborne and the Tory narrative to focus on the deficit.

    The "deficit" is a bit like the P&L. It is an accounting fiction. You can juggle it by putting things off balance sheet (PFI), balancing debt against dubious assets (student loans) and altering definitions (housing association debt). Hammond has pulled his conjuring trick on the deficit by planning to sell billion of RBS shares (at a big loss).

    The "balance of payments" on the other hand is like the cash flow statement. It is more difficult to fudge.

    Bottom line is - if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, the balance of payments and trade deficit (I know they are not identical) would not be in the mess that they are. They are much less sustainable than the deficit.
    A very good post.

    The deficit is quite real though in that it adds to our debt, and our debt is something we'll have to pay interest on tomorrow and every day until it's paid off. If your accounting fiction doesn't charge you then maybe it is a fiction. We will pay every penny of our very real debt obligations.
    The government borrows £50bn by issuing gilts at say 1% interest.

    The Bank of England buys them using money electronically created (Quantitive Easing).

    The Government pays the BOE £0.5bn interest a year.

    The BOE pays this £0.5bn a year back to the Treasury.

    That's the magic money tree. That's the reality of our "very real debt obligations". It's a game. A fiction. Money is created. It's not in any way the same as a household budget.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,411
    Barnesian said:

    Omnium said:

    Barnesian said:



    Yes.
    Who will gain the advantage? us or them?

    Australia needs a purchaser for their primary products.
    It is very odd how the key metric has changed over the years from "the balance of payments" to "the deficit". Movements in the balance of payments could bring down governments. They were watched avidly. Now they seem to be ignored because it suited Osborne and the Tory narrative to focus on the deficit.

    The "deficit" is a bit like the P&L. It is an accounting fiction. You can juggle it by putting things off balance sheet (PFI), balancing debt against dubious assets (student loans) and altering definitions (housing association debt). Hammond has pulled his conjuring trick on the deficit by planning to sell billion of RBS shares (at a big loss).

    The "balance of payments" on the other hand is like the cash flow statement. It is more difficult to fudge.

    Bottom line is - if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, the balance of payments and trade deficit (I know they are not identical) would not be in the mess that they are. They are much less sustainable than the deficit.
    A very good post.

    The deficit is quite real though in that it adds to our debt, and our debt is something we'll have to pay interest on tomorrow and every day until it's paid off. If your accounting fiction doesn't charge you then maybe it is a fiction. We will pay every penny of our very real debt obligations.
    The government borrows £50bn by issuing gilts at say 1% interest.

    The Bank of England buys them using money electronically created (Quantitive Easing).

    The Government pays the BOE £0.5bn interest a year.

    The BOE pays this £0.5bn a year back to the Treasury.

    That's the magic money tree. That's the reality of our "very real debt obligations". It's a game. A fiction. Money is created. It's not in any way the same as a household budget.
    Not all of it is like this though, and I assume QE will eventually be wound down.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,544
    edited November 25
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42065767

    The 2nd pic is great.

    The tory client vote have the party by the balls.
  • Wiccccccckkkkeeeeettttt.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited November 25
    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:

    Good result for Labour in Rutherglen which confirms my view that 20 gains from the SNP are likely next time.

    I think it will be around 25.
    Yougov earlier this week had it Tories 40% Labour 43% LD 7% UK wide and SNP 33% Labour 36% in Scotland http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/xz189e7ce5/TimesResults_171120_BudgetQs_VI_W.pdfnd.


    That would see 21 SNP seats go to Labour on a swing of 4.5% (but it is a subsample). Though given the UK wide figures would give Labour 318 seats and the Tories 281 seats, Labour would still be 8 short of an overall majority even then and therefore either have to rely on LD or SNP confidence and supply.

    Bear in mind also full Westminster Scottish polls have shown less movement to Labour in Scotland than that subsample and Yougov today post Budget had the Labour lead falling by 1% from the 3% lead it had earlier in the week to 2%.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    Barnesian said:



    It is very odd how the key metric has changed over the years from "the balance of payments" to "the deficit". Movements in the balance of payments could bring down governments. They were watched avidly. Now they seem to be ignored because it suited Osborne and the Tory narrative to focus on the deficit.

    The "deficit" is a bit like the P&L. It is an accounting fiction. You can juggle it by putting things off balance sheet (PFI), balancing debt against dubious assets (student loans) and altering definitions (housing association debt). Hammond has pulled his conjuring trick on the deficit by planning to sell billion of RBS shares (at a big loss).

    The "balance of payments" on the other hand is like the cash flow statement. It is more difficult to fudge.

    Bottom line is - if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, the balance of payments and trade deficit (I know they are not identical) would not be in the mess that they are. They are much less sustainable than the deficit.

    Takes two to tango.
    Not sure what could have been done realistically given China/others focus on keeping currency weak.

    On the narrative shift - I think it reflected a view in economics that the balance of payments was actually not that important.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    HYUFD said:

    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:

    Good result for Labour in Rutherglen which confirms my view that 20 gains from the SNP are likely next time.

    I think it will be around 25.
    Yougov earlier this week had it Tories 40% Labour 43% LD 7% UK wide and SNP 33% Labour 36% in Scotland http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/xz189e7ce5/TimesResults_171120_BudgetQs_VI_W.pdfnd.


    That would see 21 SNP seats go to Labour on a swing of 4.5% (but it is a subsample). Though given the UK wide figures would give Labour 318 seats and the Tories 281 seats, Labour would still be 8 short of an overall majority even then and therefore either have to rely on LD or SNP confidence and supply.

    Bear in mind also full Westminster Scottish polls have shown less movement to Labour in Scotland than that subsample and Yougov today post Budget had the Labour lead UK wide falling by 1% from the 3% lead it had earlier in the week to 2% with the Tories on 39% and Labour on 41% and the LDs on 7%.

    In Scotland today Yougov had the SNP doing much better in the subsample with the SNP on 38% Labour 24% Tories 25%.
    That would see a result of Labour 285 Tories 286 UK wide and the SNP win back 5 Labour Scottish seats.
    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hne3n1xg7y/TimesResults_171123_VI_BudgetQs.pdf
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,828
    justin124 said:

    An error in the Wakefield result which actually saw a 2.5% swing from Lab to Con!

    Also, it was Wakefield West.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,411
    New thread...
  • justin124 said:

    An error in the Wakefield result which actually saw a 2.5% swing from Lab to Con!

    Also, it was Wakefield West.
    Oh Dear ... Try taking some water with it Harry!
This discussion has been closed.