Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Graham Brady – 1922 committee chairman and the only one who kn

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited January 29 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Graham Brady – 1922 committee chairman and the only one who knows how safe TMay is

Pictured above is Graham Brady, Chair of the Conservative 1922 Committee and MP for Altrincham & Sale – which is just down the road from Old Trafford where Manchester’s second football team plays.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,695
    First
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 6,489
    Graham Brady is only going to force a vote when it is tantamount to handing her the whiskey and the revolver. When there is not other conceivable outcome.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719

    Graham Brady is only going to force a vote when it is tantamount to handing her the whiskey and the revolver. When there is not other conceivable outcome.

    Is there any evidence of him negotiating with MPs to revoke their letters or not submit them? How much discretion does he have?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719

    He also said 'Jacob Rees-Mogg Should Not Be Next Tory Leader'

    Is Rees-Mogg alluding to the Alan Clark quip?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281
    Not a fan of Man Utd, Mike?
  • I wonder why Mrs May gave Graham Brady a Knighthood?

    Given the trouble Mrs May keeps on causing I won't be surprised to see her buying off Graham Brady with a Royal Dukedom.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281

    I wonder why Mrs May gave Graham Brady a Knighthood?

    Given the trouble Mrs May keeps on causing I won't be surprised to see her buying off Graham Brady with a Royal Dukedom.

    You surely are not suggesting that our honours system is occasionally used to reward people for political favours!?!
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,530

    Graham Brady is only going to force a vote when it is tantamount to handing her the whiskey and the revolver. When there is not other conceivable outcome.

    Brady has no autonomy in the matter, he just has to count to 48; unless MPs have given him letters "in escrow" as it were by giving him the letter and leaving it to him to choose when to treat it as delivered to him.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,561
    I'm not convinced at all that there's clearly been a knock to her confidence since the result. Instead Emperors New Clothes style her confidence was missing all along.

    A confident PM would have turned up to the debates.
    A confident PM would have campaigned amongst the voters.

    A confident PM could have won the election but confidence was lacking prior to votes being cast.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010

    I'm not convinced at all that there's clearly been a knock to her confidence since the result. Instead Emperors New Clothes style her confidence was missing all along.

    A confident PM would have turned up to the debates.
    A confident PM would have campaigned amongst the voters.

    A confident PM could have won the election but confidence was lacking prior to votes being cast.

    Strange, but true.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,845

    Graham Brady is only going to force a vote when it is tantamount to handing her the whiskey and the revolver. When there is not other conceivable outcome.

    Giving her Irish firewater would be rubbing salt in the wound.
  • kle4 said:

    I wonder why Mrs May gave Graham Brady a Knighthood?

    Given the trouble Mrs May keeps on causing I won't be surprised to see her buying off Graham Brady with a Royal Dukedom.

    You surely are not suggesting that our honours system is occasionally used to reward people for political favours!?!
    Perish the thought.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 62,086
    edited January 29

    Graham Brady is only going to force a vote when it is tantamount to handing her the whiskey and the revolver. When there is not other conceivable outcome.

    He's the returning officer in the process not the Prince-elector.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,685
    Obviously brexit was never going to pay for itself. The first tax hike (of many):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42860723
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,872
    edited January 29

    Graham Brady is only going to force a vote when it is tantamount to handing her the whiskey and the revolver. When there is not other conceivable outcome.

    He's the returning officer in the process not the Prince-elector.
    But...practically...if no-one else really knows...then how do we know? Does he ever have to provide proof of the letters, when he says there are 48, and if so who to?
    How do we know there haven't been 48 for a while?
    A heck of a lot of power for one (recently knighted) person.
  • Pong said:

    Obviously brexit was never going to pay for itself. The first tax hike (of many):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42860723

    'The proposed increased fees could mean the government makes an extra £50m in the next financial year.'

    That's a sub rounding error in the grand scheme of government income.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,563

    I'm not convinced at all that there's clearly been a knock to her confidence since the result. Instead Emperors New Clothes style her confidence was missing all along.

    A confident PM would have turned up to the debates.
    A confident PM would have campaigned amongst the voters.

    A confident PM could have won the election but confidence was lacking prior to votes being cast.

    Yet she was given confidence from the polls, from the supportive media, the Party and from her own advisers.

    She had a vast support network of those wanting her to win and win big last June.

    Yet she failed - perhaps not confidence but over-confidence.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,851
    Next Tory leader market.1,avoid fav and 2nd fav.2 has to be a leaver.The only 2 left standing are ace schemer Gove,best priced at 20-1 and with Murdoch and Dacre's ears,and Mrs Leadsom,best-priced 10-1,who has previous respectable form in the leadership stakes and has a lovely smile.Profit £56.67 for a tenner if either wins.Cant see anyone coming out of the undergrowth and Ruth Davidson is a non-runner.
  • dixiedean said:

    Graham Brady is only going to force a vote when it is tantamount to handing her the whiskey and the revolver. When there is not other conceivable outcome.

    He's the returning officer in the process not the Prince-elector.
    But...practically...if no-one else really knows...then how do we know? Does he ever have to provide proof of the letters, when he says there are 48, and if so who to?
    The rest of the executive of the 1922 are shown the letters, sans the name of the MP submitting the letter once the threshold is met.

    If it is co-ordinated like 2003, the rebels themselves know how many letters have been sent, and when to deliver the coup de grâce.
  • Pong said:

    Obviously brexit was never going to pay for itself. The first tax hike (of many):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42860723

    Looks like an attempt to discourage postal rather than online applications for passports.

    Although increasing tax on foreign travel is itself no bad thing for a country with a £20bn tourism deficit.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,186

    Pong said:

    Obviously brexit was never going to pay for itself. The first tax hike (of many):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42860723

    Looks like an attempt to discourage postal rather than online applications for passports.

    Although increasing tax on foreign travel is itself no bad thing for a country with a £20bn tourism deficit.
    Online application procedure for passports is so much easier than the old paper form and strip of photos. I can thoroughly recommend it and think it is a sensible thing to nudge people in that direction.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638
    Scott_P said:
    A bit like the severe recession we had after the vote?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,872

    dixiedean said:

    Graham Brady is only going to force a vote when it is tantamount to handing her the whiskey and the revolver. When there is not other conceivable outcome.

    He's the returning officer in the process not the Prince-elector.
    But...practically...if no-one else really knows...then how do we know? Does he ever have to provide proof of the letters, when he says there are 48, and if so who to?
    The rest of the executive of the 1922 are shown the letters, sans the name of the MP submitting the letter once the threshold is met.

    If it is co-ordinated like 2003, the rebels themselves know how many letters have been sent, and when to deliver the coup de grâce.
    Thanks. Unlikely to be co-ordinated this time though. There will probably be mutually-opposed dissenters
  • I'm not convinced at all that there's clearly been a knock to her confidence since the result. Instead Emperors New Clothes style her confidence was missing all along.

    A confident PM would have turned up to the debates.
    A confident PM would have campaigned amongst the voters.

    A confident PM could have won the election but confidence was lacking prior to votes being cast.

    Its odd, May seems to lack the natural self-confidence which is associated with politicians.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,561
    stodge said:

    I'm not convinced at all that there's clearly been a knock to her confidence since the result. Instead Emperors New Clothes style her confidence was missing all along.

    A confident PM would have turned up to the debates.
    A confident PM would have campaigned amongst the voters.

    A confident PM could have won the election but confidence was lacking prior to votes being cast.

    Yet she was given confidence from the polls, from the supportive media, the Party and from her own advisers.

    She had a vast support network of those wanting her to win and win big last June.

    Yet she failed - perhaps not confidence but over-confidence.
    Hence the Emperors New Clothes metaphor.

    However her actions haven't really changed. Pre election her refusing to debate Corbyn was portrayed as the actions of someone supremely confident that she'd win and didn't need to debate. However she's still acting the same way now.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,186

    Scott_P said:
    A bit like the severe recession we had after the vote?
    Do Buzzfeed have any employees left to write or are they leaving everything to the unpaid interns?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit
  • Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    Here's something else which was going to happen 'under all scenarios':

    ' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.

    It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.

    The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.

    In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.

    ...

    House price growth would be hit by at least ten per cent and as much as 18 per cent, making homeowners poorer. There wouldn’t be good news for young people trying to get on the housing ladder, though, because mortgages would be harder to get and more expensive. '

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,668
    Scott_P said:
    Well that busts the leaker’s “public interest” defence
  • Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    Here's something else which was going to happen 'under all scenarios':

    ' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.

    It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.

    The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.

    In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.

    ...

    House price growth would be hit by at least ten per cent and as much as 18 per cent, making homeowners poorer. There wouldn’t be good news for young people trying to get on the housing ladder, though, because mortgages would be harder to get and more expensive. '

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
    Remember that not only was the UK to have a recession after a Leave vote 'under all scenarios' it was also NOT going to have a recession in 2008 'under all scenarios'.

    I think the evidence of the last decade suggests that we should be rather sceptical of anything predicted 'under all scenarios' and instead look for something a little more open-minded.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    Here's something else which was going to happen 'under all scenarios':

    ' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.

    It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.

    The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.

    In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.

    ...

    House price growth would be hit by at least ten per cent and as much as 18 per cent, making homeowners poorer. There wouldn’t be good news for young people trying to get on the housing ladder, though, because mortgages would be harder to get and more expensive. '

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
    Just because the wolf didn't turn up the first time....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010
    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    It all seems to be minor stuff.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,641
    Scott_P said:
    Economic forecasts that far out are pretty meaningless. Economic growth itself is also pretty meaningless if GDP is stagnant on a per capita basis.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006
    There is a good chance that there will be a confidence vote but I think it highly likely that Theresa May would win it. For the simple reason that nobody really wants a new person in the job right now during Brexit negotiations. It would be far easier for the Tory party to allow Theresa May to stay around until all the donkeywork of Brexit is done and finished with, and then have a fresh new leader that can get on with his/her own agenda for running the country and preparing for the next election. The Tories will also not want to commit to someone new just yet. Better to wait, allow new candidates to emerge, and a new leader might even be in honeymoon mode at the next election.

    If the air is to be cleared a la John Major 1995, then so be it. But I suspect that May would win any confidence vote right now.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,523
    Watching the 10 o’clock news - feels like one bad headline after another for the Tories and Theresa May...
  • IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    Here's something else which was going to happen 'under all scenarios':

    ' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.

    It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.

    The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.

    In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.

    ...

    House price growth would be hit by at least ten per cent and as much as 18 per cent, making homeowners poorer. There wouldn’t be good news for young people trying to get on the housing ladder, though, because mortgages would be harder to get and more expensive. '

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
    Just because the wolf didn't turn up the first time....
    ... doesn't mean that the wolf will turn up next either.

    It may or it may not and I expect the recession wolf to turn up at some point, and the when and where and why are even more uncertain.

    But those who say it will turn up at a specific time and place under all scenarios are just exposing how closed minded they are.

    Something which denizens of a gambling associated site should all have learnt by now.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    Here's something else which was going to happen 'under all scenarios':

    ' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.

    It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.

    The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.

    In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.

    ...

    House price growth would be hit by at least ten per cent and as much as 18 per cent, making homeowners poorer. There wouldn’t be good news for young people trying to get on the housing ladder, though, because mortgages would be harder to get and more expensive. '

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
    Just because the wolf didn't turn up the first time....
    ... doesn't mean that the wolf will turn up next either.

    It may or it may not and I expect the recession wolf to turn up at some point, and the when and where and why are even more uncertain.

    But those who say it will turn up at a specific time and place under all scenarios are just exposing how closed minded they are.

    Something which denizens of a gambling associated site should all have learnt by now.
    +1
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    edited January 29
    Scott_P said:
    That's funny. This does look like a softening up exercise on the more unreconstructed Leavers: "Do you want to argue in favour of eating babies?"

    My bete noir, Daniel Hannan, complains bitterly in the Telegraph about the "vassal state" terms with the EU but doesn't propose an alternative. I am sure he used to talk approvingly about Norway's arrangement with the EU. Now he seems to think it a form of slavery, if less than what's proposed for our transition.

    The most interesting takeaway from the Guardian poll a few days ago that showed most people supported a second trending is that half the people think Brexit will have no economic effect or be beneficial. They are wrong about that, but the point is, as long as they think it, Brexit is assured.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    Here's something else which was going to happen 'under all scenarios':

    ' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.

    It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.

    The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.

    In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.

    ...

    House price growth would be hit by at least ten per cent and as much as 18 per cent, making homeowners poorer. There wouldn’t be good news for young people trying to get on the housing ladder, though, because mortgages would be harder to get and more expensive. '

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
    Just because the wolf didn't turn up the first time....
    ... doesn't mean that the wolf will turn up next either.

    It may or it may not and I expect the recession wolf to turn up at some point, and the when and where and why are even more uncertain.

    But those who say it will turn up at a specific time and place under all scenarios are just exposing how closed minded they are.

    Something which denizens of a gambling associated site should all have learnt by now.
    We can say with some confidence that there will be a recession in the future.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Economic forecasts that far out are pretty meaningless. Economic growth itself is also pretty meaningless if GDP is stagnant on a per capita basis.
    Indeed.

    Wasn't the Treasury predicting that GDP would be 4% lower in 2030 after a Leave rather than a Remain vote.

    But then managed to underpredict the 18 months after the Leave vote by more than that 4% ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    What's that burning smell?

    Is it just rubber from the Brexiteers' swift course direction, who went from "Brexit will be brilliant" to "Brexit won't be quite as shit as you thought" ?
  • Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    Here's something else which was going to happen 'under all scenarios':

    ' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.

    It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.

    The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.

    In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.

    ...

    House price growth would be hit by at least ten per cent and as much as 18 per cent, making homeowners poorer. There wouldn’t be good news for young people trying to get on the housing ladder, though, because mortgages would be harder to get and more expensive. '

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
    Just because the wolf didn't turn up the first time....
    ... doesn't mean that the wolf will turn up next either.

    It may or it may not and I expect the recession wolf to turn up at some point, and the when and where and why are even more uncertain.

    But those who say it will turn up at a specific time and place under all scenarios are just exposing how closed minded they are.

    Something which denizens of a gambling associated site should all have learnt by now.
    We can say with some confidence that there will be a recession in the future.
    I believe the Treasury has never managed to predict a recession which did occur.

    But managed to predict a recession which didn't occur.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,511
    Scott_P said:
    And we all know how reliable economic forecasts are of course...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    edited January 29

    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Economic forecasts that far out are pretty meaningless. Economic growth itself is also pretty meaningless if GDP is stagnant on a per capita basis.
    Indeed.

    Wasn't the Treasury predicting that GDP would be 4% lower in 2030 after a Leave rather than a Remain vote.

    But then managed to underpredict the 18 months after the Leave vote by more than that 4% ?
    No. Maybe yes. I was thinking of something else. Apologies
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    And it's a Blue Moon this week !
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    Scott_P said:

    What's that burning smell?

    Is it just rubber from the Brexiteers' swift course direction, who went from "Brexit will be brilliant" to "Brexit won't be quite as shit as you thought" ?

    What was that metallic sound?

    Was it Scott finally realising it isn't all about Lattes and car parts?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719
    FF43 said:

    The most interesting takeaway from the Guardian poll a few days ago that showed most people supported a second trending is that half the people think Brexit will have no economic effect or be beneficial. They are wrong about that, but the point is, as long as they think it, Brexit is assured.

    The other way of reading that is that as long as people think it, Brexit is vulnerable to events. Who knows when the moment will come when the curtain will be pulled back and it will be proven beyond doubt that there is no Brexit Wizard?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    Mortimer said:

    Was it Scott finally realising it isn't all about Lattes and car parts?

    Read the report.

    Non-tariff barriers. Now, who said that? Repeatedly.

    And how does it pertain to car parts?

    oh...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    Scott_P said:

    Mortimer said:

    Was it Scott finally realising it isn't all about Lattes and car parts?

    Read the report.

    Non-tariff barriers. Now, who said that? Repeatedly.

    And how does it pertain to car parts?

    oh...
    No, that sound clearly wasn't Scott getting it.

    Politics. Is. Not. All. About. Economics.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,272
    edited January 29
    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:

    What's that burning smell?

    Is it just rubber from the Brexiteers' swift course direction, who went from "Brexit will be brilliant" to "Brexit won't be quite as shit as you thought" ?

    What was that metallic sound?

    Was it Scott finally realising it isn't all about Lattes and car parts?
    Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    The last time the Tories held a no confidence vote in a leader, over IDS in 2003, it made zero impact on their performance in 2005, indeed the 33% Howard got was 1% less than the 34% the Tories were polling in the final Yougov before IDS was toppled. Similarly on current polling no alternative leader polls significantly better than May and many poll worse and with the party roughly level pegging with Labour as far as I am concerned it is pointless when the party and the country should be focused on the complex Brexit talks.

    If we were in a 1990 style scenario, when Thatcher had introduced the unpopular poll tax after a decade in power and alternative leaders like Major and Heseltine were polling better against Labour than she was then it may be a different story but we are not.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    John_M said:

    Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.

    I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.

    YMMV...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    Scott_P said:
    Well, they started it...*

    *I've been waiting 20 minutes for someone to post a link to this piece.
  • Scott_P said:

    What's that burning smell?

    Is it just rubber from the Brexiteers' swift course direction, who went from "Brexit will be brilliant" to "Brexit won't be quite as shit as you thought" ?

    Looks pretty good to me at present.

    Economy rebalancing, trade and budget deficits at their lowest as a proportion of GDP for about 15 years, manufacturing and house construction having their best periods for at least 20 years, stock markets at new highs.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 892
    Scott_P said:

    John_M said:

    Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.

    I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.

    YMMV...
    I would
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,530
    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    And we all know how reliable economic forecasts are of course...
    I don't understand your question. Surely you wouldn't dismiss the forecasts of egg spurts?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    PMQs will be entertaining.

    How will Jezza avoid asking about this for 6 questions?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    Ireland to have an abortion referendum at the end of May
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    John_M said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:

    What's that burning smell?

    Is it just rubber from the Brexiteers' swift course direction, who went from "Brexit will be brilliant" to "Brexit won't be quite as shit as you thought" ?

    What was that metallic sound?

    Was it Scott finally realising it isn't all about Lattes and car parts?
    Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.
    :)

    Using GDP as the only measure of health and well being in a country is bonkers. At the very least it should at least take into account the number of people in a country.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    Also amusing that the Brexiteers rushing to rubbish this report are still willing to die in a ditch to defend £350m a week...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010
    Scott_P said:

    John_M said:

    Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.

    I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.

    YMMV...
    Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,547
    Scott_P said:

    Mortimer said:

    Was it Scott finally realising it isn't all about Lattes and car parts?

    Read the report.

    Non-tariff barriers. Now, who said that? Repeatedly.

    And how does it pertain to car parts?

    oh...
    ALL CAR ASSEMBLY FACTORY LOCATIONS TO BE MADE FREEPORTS AND EXEMPT FROM IMPORT DUTIES AND CONTROLS - RUMOUR.
  • FF43 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Economic forecasts that far out are pretty meaningless. Economic growth itself is also pretty meaningless if GDP is stagnant on a per capita basis.
    Indeed.

    Wasn't the Treasury predicting that GDP would be 4% lower in 2030 after a Leave rather than a Remain vote.

    But then managed to underpredict the 18 months after the Leave vote by more than that 4% ?
    No. Maybe yes. I was thinking of something else. Apologies
    No need to apologise - the details of what the Treasury predicted hardly matters as it predicted whatever suited the government's purpose at the time.

    I've sort of come round to thinking that Osborne was right to set up the OBR - although the OBR's predictions don't have a good record themselves.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,272
    edited January 29
    Scott_P said:

    John_M said:

    Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.

    I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.

    YMMV...
    But it's not poorer is it? If we assume trend growth over the next 15 years ( a stretch, but really, the number doesn't matter), then even with WTO the UK is going to be 25% wealthier than now; if FTA, 28% and EEA, 31%.

    Putting that in perspective, in the last ten years trend growth should have been 19.8% or thereabouts. Instead, we've grown 10.6%. We've been robbed.

    Goodnight all.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010

    Scott_P said:

    What's that burning smell?

    Is it just rubber from the Brexiteers' swift course direction, who went from "Brexit will be brilliant" to "Brexit won't be quite as shit as you thought" ?

    Looks pretty good to me at present.

    Economy rebalancing, trade and budget deficits at their lowest as a proportion of GDP for about 15 years, manufacturing and house construction having their best periods for at least 20 years, stock markets at new highs.
    I struggle to see why those should all be regarded as bad things.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,546
    edited January 29
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    It all seems to be minor stuff.
    Yes very minor. If, after 15 years our growth is 8% less (WTO scenario) that staying in the EU, then with an economy of approx £2,000 billion, we would be £160b a year worse off in terms of size of economy. The Government would have approx £55b less in tax revenue than staying in the EU.

    The FTA scenario is that we would be 5% worse off, £100b a year in size of econony and say £35b less tax revenue.

    The EEA scenario is the most benign in that we would be 2% worse off, £40b a year in size of economy and say £15b less tax revenue.

    But we would have blue passports.

    There isn't the incentive for project fear that there was in a referendum campaign. There will be close questioning of the assumptions and methodology by the Cabinet, that there wasn't with Osborne's projections. I think they will take them seriously.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    Sean_F said:

    Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.

    And I will win the Lottery, under any scenario...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    John_M said:

    We've been robbed.

    I know!

    Gordo has much to answer for..
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719
    Presumably all of these forecasts assume the EU is strong and stable and the Euro doesn't blow up, so Brexiteers will dismiss them as far too Panglossian.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,641
    Scott_P said:
    I love how arch Remainers still can’t use the term Brexiteer, because it might have too many positive connotations. Talk about insecurity.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,546

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    Here's something else which was going to happen 'under all scenarios':

    ' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.

    It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.

    The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.

    In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.

    ...

    House price growth would be hit by at least ten per cent and as much as 18 per cent, making homeowners poorer. There wouldn’t be good news for young people trying to get on the housing ladder, though, because mortgages would be harder to get and more expensive. '

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
    Just because the wolf didn't turn up the first time....
    ... doesn't mean that the wolf will turn up next either.

    It may or it may not and I expect the recession wolf to turn up at some point, and the when and where and why are even more uncertain.

    But those who say it will turn up at a specific time and place under all scenarios are just exposing how closed minded they are.

    Something which denizens of a gambling associated site should all have learnt by now.
    This looks more like a difference case that isn't very sensitive to the vagaries of the year to year variations in the performance of the economy. The fact that it is long term makes it more stable. It isn't a detailed weather forecast.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 346
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    edited January 29
    John_M said:

    Scott_P said:

    John_M said:

    Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.

    I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.

    YMMV...
    But it's not poorer is it? If we assume trend growth over the next 15 years ( a stretch, but really, the number doesn't matter), then even with WTO the UK is going to be 25% wealthier than now; if FTA, 28% and EEA, 31%.

    Putting that in perspective, in the last ten years trend growth should have been 19.8% or thereabouts. Instead, we've grown 10.6%. We've been robbed.
    Yes, but the Credit Crunch was was economic pain that happened to us while Brexit is discretionary pain that we actually voted for.

    Anyway I think there's good news today from a Remainer perspective. The proposed "transition" arrangement. The EU acquis is full of goodness and this means we benefit from it for a further two years. There also isn't a sensible alternative to it.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,386
    FPT:

    Interesting information on the Immigration Minister:

    http://jacparty.weebly.com/caroline-nokes-mp.html
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,386
    Does anyone know much about Nuclear Management Partners Ltd? I am party to some interesting information on them to put it mildly, which could land a few people in trouble..............
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,652
    Barnesian said:

    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    It all seems to be minor stuff.
    Yes very minor. If, after 15 years our growth is 8% less (WTO scenario) that staying in the EU, then with an economy of approx £2,000 billion, we would be £160b a year worse off in terms of size of economy. The Government would have approx £55b less in tax revenue than staying in the EU.

    The FTA scenario is that we would be 5% worse off, £100b a year in size of econony and say £35b less tax revenue.

    The EEA scenario is the most benign in that we would be 2% worse off, £40b a year in size of economy and say £15b less tax revenue.

    But we would have blue passports.

    There isn't the incentive for project fear that there was in a referendum campaign. There will be close questioning of the assumptions and methodology by the Cabinet, that there wasn't with Osborne's projections. I think they will take them seriously.

    So in the best case scenario, all the money we save by not being in the EU gets spent instead on plugging around 70% of the tax shortfall caused by leaving the EU - and we’ve essentially agreed to leave in name only. Brilliant!!

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,641
    I do wish backbenchers wouldn’t sound off like this. That said, once the Brexit subcommittee has agreed on the desired end state, they need to shout the benefits of it from the rooftops.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    Scott_P said:
    Remainer Tories are willing to crash the government? yeh, right.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334
    Scott_P said:
    Perhaps not the ideal headline to juxtapose with a story about VW pumping car exhaust fumes into rooms full of people.....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010
    Barnesian said:

    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    It all seems to be minor stuff.
    Yes very minor. If, after 15 years our growth is 8% less (WTO scenario) that staying in the EU, then with an economy of approx £2,000 billion, we would be £160b a year worse off in terms of size of economy. The Government would have approx £55b less in tax revenue than staying in the EU.

    The FTA scenario is that we would be 5% worse off, £100b a year in size of econony and say £35b less tax revenue.

    The EEA scenario is the most benign in that we would be 2% worse off, £40b a year in size of economy and say £15b less tax revenue.

    But we would have blue passports.

    There isn't the incentive for project fear that there was in a referendum campaign. There will be close questioning of the assumptions and methodology by the Cabinet, that there wasn't with Osborne's projections. I think they will take them seriously.
    But, we will be considerably better off than now, even under the worst scenario, and government revenues will be accordingly, much higher than they are now.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,975
    Scott_P said:
    The Guardian putting the story of VW gassing people and animals on the same front page as the German Ambassador asking us to stop talking about the war is particularly mischievous.
  • Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @AlbertoNardelli: The main driver for the economic hit under all modelled scenarios are non tariff barriers - EEA or FTAs with the US and others, and divergence, would mitigate but not eliminate the negative impact of leaving the customs union

    @AlbertoNardelli: The analysis shines a light on the core of May's challenge: possibility of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic hit

    Here's something else which was going to happen 'under all scenarios':

    ' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.

    It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.

    The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.

    In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.

    ...

    House price growth would be hit by at least ten per cent and as much as 18 per cent, making homeowners poorer. There wouldn’t be good news for young people trying to get on the housing ladder, though, because mortgages would be harder to get and more expensive. '

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
    Just because the wolf didn't turn up the first time....
    ... doesn't mean that the wolf will turn up next either.

    It may or it may not and I expect the recession wolf to turn up at some point, and the when and where and why are even more uncertain.

    But those who say it will turn up at a specific time and place under all scenarios are just exposing how closed minded they are.

    Something which denizens of a gambling associated site should all have learnt by now.
    This looks more like a difference case that isn't very sensitive to the vagaries of the year to year variations in the performance of the economy. The fact that it is long term makes it more stable. It isn't a detailed weather forecast.
    Sure, but more general long term predictions can still be wrong.

    We're clearly not living in the world predicted 100 or 50 or even 20 years ago.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,546
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:

    John_M said:

    Scott is the kind of person who wouldn't do anything if it reduced the rate at which he became wealthier by 0.33% a year.

    I wouldn't vote to be 8% poorer.

    YMMV...
    Fortunately, the situation doesn't arise. Under any scenario, we are likely to be substantially richer in 15 years than we are today.
    That isn't the point as you know.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334
    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    I love how arch Remainers still can’t use the term Brexiteer, because it might have too many positive connotations. Talk about insecurity.
    Brexiteer has positive connotations ?

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,641
    edited January 29
    Scott_P said:
    There are probably only a couple of ‘Single Marketer’ Tory MPs. Most of the rebels accept Single Market membership is not compatible with the referendum result; the debate is over low vs high alignment.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,975
    RoyalBlue said:

    I do wish backbenchers wouldn’t sound off like this. That said, once the Brexit subcommittee has agreed on the desired end state, they need to shout the benefits of it from the rooftops.
    Agree. I wish Cash, Rees-Mogg et al would sit down and STFU.
This discussion has been closed.