Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The issue is, even if the remain side were to actually try and debate in good faith it wouldn't have worked due to the populist nature of the Leave campaign.

When your opposition just throws out everything that it thinks sounds good, at a machine gun rate of fire, without worrying about whether or not it is factually accurate or possible to achieve, you cannot keep up with debunking everything. It is the exact same tactic which Trump uses. You throw out a hundred false statements in a press conference/debate/article, knowing that it will take a week or more to gather the evidence to disprove them. By the time that happens, you've moved on and made new incorrect statements which then need to be disproved. People forget about the previous lies when you tell them something new which they like the sound of, if they even hear about the evidence against your position due to only taking in media from certain papers/websites which won't post the debunking against their own arguments.

When the debunkers finally catch up with you, you instead switch to discredit them rather than try to defend your positions ("Tired of experts"/"Project fear"/"Fake news"). By that point you've solidified a core of rabid followers due to you promising each of them their own personal moon, sun and stars and they've bought in enough that to accept that they've been scammed would be a huge kick in their ego, so it is easier for them to just go along with it and actually believe that it is the other side which is making stuff up to ruin their wondrous brexit/president rather than pointing out serious issues.

That is a very good description of thousands of years of political history.

Let's face it, both sides were shockingly bad in the referendum. I don't think anybody can point the finger at anybody.

I though my side's Turkey claim was utter bollocks, and as I've said before, I've never had a problem with migration. Farage's poster was also horsegak. It's impossible to keep peope out in this world.

I ask only that the British people have the final say on who gets to enter our country. 1 person a year? Fine. 10 million a year? Fine.

As long as everybody's happy, because after all, we all decided on who gets into our own homes, so to me, the nation is no different.

There is no human right for non-Brits to get into Britain, unless we legally agree: Commonwealth, EU citizens, or other legal things like wives, husbands, etc etc before anybody jumps down my throat.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nobody on Dakka seriously thinks that Brexit was unique in human history for Bullgak?

The problem is that if you base everything on bullgak then you tend to end up neck deep in the stuff.

 Steve steveson wrote:
There is still a week until Christmas.

There can't be a GE declared until at least the end of January, and the only way that May can be forced out is resign, or heaven forbid...death. As much as I dislike May, I wouldn't wish death on her.

And by the 1922 rules, if memory serves, It would take at least a few weeks for a leadership contest. It's Xmas, MPs are looking to enjoy the holidays, or plot and scheme for the New Year.

May is going nowhere in the short-term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nobody on Dakka seriously thinks that Brexit was unique in human history for Bullgak?

The problem is that if you base everything on bullgak then you tend to end up neck deep in the stuff.

I freely admit that Leave didn't exactly cover itself in glory, and I can safely say on your behalf, judging by your past posts, that are norrmally reasoned and balanced, that it wasn't exactly Remain's finest hour, either.

I don't know if you've ever read Tim Shipman's book on Brexit 'All out War,' but surprisingly, only George Osborne off all people comes out of the Remain side with any credit. If Osborne had been more front and centre, Remain might have won it. In public he was on message, but privately, he was scathing of Remain's campagn, but Dave was convinced it would be all right on the night, so he was far too casual about it.

On such things are battles won or lost...

Nick Clegg and Tony Blair should have been told to feth off by Remain. They did a lot of damage to your side. People just did not trust them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


May is still PM - everybody predicted she'd by gone by Xmas.

Brexit negotiations are onto Phase II. Again, doom and disaster were predicted.

The UK was supposed to be in recession by now. We're not.

Things are not as bad as people predicted.

May's still there because the leading contender decided that it is a good idea to show that he has about the same diplomatic ability as a rabid Cujo.

Only a few thought recession would be immediately forthcoming, the more sensible reports suggest that we would see a period of decline. Whether we will actually get a recession is unknown. If we do and the rest of the world is growing that is really bad news (because relatively our economy will decline significantly to others, but that might happen even without a referendum). A lot might depend on what happens early next year. My anecdotal impression is that retailers are having a bad Xmas. There are reports of heavy discounting now and I drove past a shopping park today (Fosse Park). Usually around Xmas you don't go anywhere near the place if you can avoid it because you spend an hour just sitting in the car waiting for car park spaces to arrive. There were large numbers of car parking spaces in the main areas (and it hadn't expanded over the last year), I've never seen that (even in the recession period) a week before Christmas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I freely admit that Leave didn't exactly cover itself in glory, and I can safely say on your behalf, judging by your past posts, that are norrmally reasoned and balanced, that it wasn't exactly Remain's finest hour, either.

I don't know if you've ever read Tim Shipman's book on Brexit 'All out War,' but surprisingly, only George Osborne off all people comes out of the Remain side with any credit. If Osborne had been more front and centre, Remain might have won it. In public he was on message, but privately, he was scathing of Remain's campagn, but Dave was convinced it would be all right on the night, so he was far too casual about it.

On such things are battles won or lost...

Nick Clegg and Tony Blair should have been told to feth off by Remain. They did a lot of damage to your side. People just did not trust them.

It wasn't meant to be personal, if it came across that way I apologise. I'm trying to note that if policies and direction arise from 'bullgak' then, because it is not data and evidence driven, you tend to find that the end result is a big pile of 'bullgak' because the impacts were never properly considered.

Yes the Remain campaign was appalling and horrifying to watch. The problem was DC thought fear would work as it seemed to have done in the Scottish Referendum. So instead of demonstrating the benefits the EU bring in they instead tried to scare people. Of course for those that are already suffering because of the way Tories are dividing the pain for trying to get the Country out of the mess then talking about being thousand's of £'s worst off is pretty pointless (and can be counter productive).

The lack of challenge on key points on the Leave campaign were also pretty shocking. I think the result would have been different if the campaign had at any point actually come out and said "so what is Leave's plan for exiting the EU and achieving what you have stated", because we all know now they had no plan and expected others to produce it.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
People keep banging on about the lies of the leave campaign, but the remain campaign had a fair bit of scaremongering and nonsense itself, and some dubious tactics such as the government spending more than the allowed campaign budgets on a leaflet sent to every house in the UK, which was allowed because it was apparently the ‘government’s postion’ By obviously was pro-remain.

I would agree that the leave campaign overall was the poorer conducted, but his backing remain did not cover themselves in glory either. Generally the quality of debate was appalling in the mainstream media and televised debates, which is where the majority would have accessed it. Stock phrases on both sides, sweeping statements and hyperbole, little real debate or reason. It was dreadful, smacked of dishonesty and embarrassing to watch at times. Shortly after we had the general election and it was worse, we just had May saying ‘strong and stsble’ All the time like some kind of repetive brainwashing. The frequency with which I waned the throw stuff at the TV these last couple of years has been at its worst.

This is all true, and it is the reason why the debate continues to rage now.

The Leave campaign never offered a clear vision of what Brexit actually meant, so people voted for whatever idea they formed by themselves. This was helpful in winning the referendum because it's much easier to get a coalition of voices to vote for a woolly proposition, but it makes fulfillment of the promise much harder.

The Hard Brexiteers of course want to bounce the country into their private version of extreme Brexit, but everyone else, including all of the Remain voters, has the right to expect a range of options to choose from.

It really would help get Remainers on board if they were presented with something better than the dreadful state of drift, irresolution and sheer incompentence that the government has been displaying for the past 18 months.

@whirlwind. No worries.

This post is kinda a reply to Kilkrazy as well, but I honestly believe that modern politicians don't read enough history books these days.

Take David Cameron. Here is a man with a party divided over Europe, and a referendum campaign on his hands. Where could he turn to for advice?

The 1970s and Harold Wilson. A man with a party bitterly divided over Europe and a referendum on his hands.

I would like to think that Cameron might have read something about this, but I'm not too sure.

Wilson and Thatcher are probably the last two capable PMs we've had. Wilson would have looked at the 52/48 result and been all over EFTA like a bad rash, and got the compromise deal through the Commons.

Thatcher, and I say this as somebody who loathed her, would never have allowed herself to be boxed in like Cameron in the first place.

Since Thatcher's fall, we, the British people have been badly served on a whole host of issues by a whole gang of incompetent politicians.

I think there is a lot in what you say. Cameron, Osborne and Bozo are a pretty bad advert for the quality of education you get from Eton and Oxford.

That said, whoever's fault it was, the country HAS managed to get itself into a dreadful pickle, and there is a great need for some clear, effective LEADERSHIP to get us out.

IMO Maybot seems to be a pretty effective operator, but she is a micromanager not an inspiring leader, and she's dealing with a cabinet assembled not for competence but for maintenance of the delicate balance within the Tory Party of the various pro- and anti-EU factions of different stripes. (I mean just look at that idiot Davis, and that clown Bozo.)

This is Labour's opportunity. They should bear down hard on the government, get a vote of no confidence, then fight an election on a clear platform of a soft Brexit (e.g. membership of EFTA and the customs union.) I'm not sure Corbyn has the vision himself, though.

Alternatively, since the Maybot would clearly be unseated by a vote of no confidence. perhaps Ruth Davidson would take her place, and run a Tory campaign also based on a clear platform of soft Brexit.

I'll be up front and declare a political bias against Ruth Davidson, but honestly, she would be a disaster for the Tories.

We get more exposure to Davidson up her, and quite frankly, she's terrible.

After Scottish Indy referendum, Unionists had nowhere to go - so Davidson cashed in by being in the right place at the right time, not because of any great political acumen.

The Scottish Media, mostly Unionist owned, go easy on her. She's big on soundbites, but has zero policy beyond SNP bad.

3 Tory councillors had to resign for racist comments only days after Davidson had called out Trump for it. Not her fault, but she compounded the calamity by saying they had spoken to an anti-racism charity for guidance, only for the charity to say nobody had contacted them.

She went into hiding for a few days after that.

In the last Scottish Parliament election, she accused the SNP of voter intimidation at the polling booths. Not a shred of evidence was presented for such a serious accusation, beyond Davidson tweeting that it had happened in a place 100 miles away from her.

She bitterly opposed Brexit, but has fallen into line behind May. She claimed that her 12 Scottish MPs were kingmakers in the Tory party, but has yet to get anything like what the DUP got for Northern Ireland.

In short, big on soundbites, zero policy, and would quickly be found out in England.

A female version of David Cameron. If that's your political preference, Davidson is the right person for the job.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'll be up front and declare a political bias against Ruth Davidson, but honestly, she would be a disaster for the Tories.

We get more exposure to Davidson up her, and quite frankly, she's terrible.

After Scottish Indy referendum, Unionists had nowhere to go - so Davidson cashed in by being in the right place at the right time, not because of any great political acumen.

To be honest Sadiq Khan seems to be the best politician we have right now both in terms of intelligence and charisma. I'm not sure Tories have got that much talent left that can meet both criteria.

At least with SNP you do seem to have a party that wants to try and correct some of the problems with society. The recent changes to Income Tax where the poorest are helped and the wealthiest pay a bit more is definitely the correct direction to go in. The type of policy and idea I'd support.

Whirlwind wrote:That's still not a rational argument. You are just saying I don't understand when the reality is you have no idea whether this is the case or not.

I do. Allow me to demonstrate;

However it fails to recognise that we live in a global market and their is only a fixed amount of 'pie' at any one time.

Wrong. We extract oil, gas, coal, diamonds, metals and all manner of other desirable products from the ground on a daily basis. We even use heat from the Earth's core for electricity generation. We generate electricity from what is basically just trapped rainwater. We generate it from the wind, the sun and the tide. We generate it from splitting atoms. We use cows to turn grass into milk, cheese, butter and other sundry items. We use all manner of undesirable food stuffs to turn healthy pigs into bacon rashers. We turn trees into beautiful ornate furniture. IKEA turns trees into furniture that doesn't fit together properly and defies any kind of practical construction technique, while also being incompatible with virtually every form of screw and mattress known to mankind, except the ones they sell. We turn seeds into fields of wheat (for Theresa May to run through when she's feeling a bit naughty). Some people turn pigments of coloured powder into awe inspiring works of art, while the rest of us sit around admiring it and muttering "How the did they do that?" under our breath. Equally we can destroy things with wanton abandon, consume products at a ferocious rate and through away the stuff we don't want callously. And if all else fails, central banks can just push the magic money button and literally create money out of thin air.

Sorry, got carried away. TL;DR An IKEA joke, a Theresa May joke, and there is no fixed pie.

The share of that market is in principle more important than any absolute local growth figure.

Wrong. People in Ethiopia couldn't care less how muck of a share of the global market they possess. What matters is how are they doing in relation to themselves, growing or receeding? It's the same for us. By your logic we'd be doing brilliantly if the rest of the world was disappearing down the toilet hole but we were still sliding down the sides. Following your logic, the last human left alive after a nuclear apocolypse would be at the peak of possible human economic output, having achieved 100% of the global share of GDP.

We can have growth but if other countries/groups (like the EU) are growing at double the rate (as is the case)

Which it isn't. Quite aside from the fact that we're still in the EU.

then we our global position is weakening because the share of that limited pie is substantially decreasing.

There is no pie.

This growth compounds over time so that double can become a much larger figure over time than the difference would suggest.

Wrong. The reverse is actually true. The bigger you get, the harder it is to keep growing by say 2% per year, because the real value of that percentage point increases with each year. Take the UK and the eurozone for example. The UK has been kicking the out of the Eurozone since 2008, which makes it harder to sustain real terms year on year growth with each passing year. The Eurozone has been doing... shall we say less well, which means they have plenty of room for growth. Spain has until fairly recently been in a deep recession. Right now they're doing pretty well (sort of), but a lot of that is them just filling in the holes of their economy that developed during their recent economic woes, just by doing things like putting their staggeringly high amount of unemployed youths back to work. You'll note if you look a GDP figures for the EU nations individually that the weaker countries and those that have had a rough time in the last few years are now those growing the fastest, while the larger economies rumble along a little more sedately.

This can doubly impact if you have a higher inflation relatively to that growth, because as a country we can afford less whilst others can afford more at a simplistic level.

Wrong. Inflation is not tied to the value of your currency (which is where purchasing power parity resides). In the modern world currency still has an impact on inflation, but the two are not the same. Observe the historical nature of price inflation in cities during sieges for an example of this effect. Or the fact that the Pound dropped significantly more against the dollar than inflation has risen in the UK.

So to come full circle your initial challenge was that all Remainers were claiming a immediate recession, which is demonstrably incorrect (you are just pushing that view to try and make a point)

Wrong. The reason we're talking about the economy and GDP like this is because you have quite literally been arguing that we're in a type of recession.

whereas many have pointed out that what is more important is our growth relatively

Wrong. See above. I'm also pretty sure you're the only person I've seen arguing that, at least in the last few pages.

and that over time will make the UK smaller, more isolated and less influential which means we will more at the mercy of the world, rather than trying to drive it in a certain direction (effectively the little England view).

Wrong. You can jump on a plane in London and be in Beijing in less than a day. There you can do business before returning home again. You do realise that after Brexit we're not going to suddenly shut all the doors and windows and start chasing people away with brooms right? One of the key opportunities of Brexit is the ability to escape the EU's narrow minded view of trade and to open our economy in a bold new direction. We also have nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the UN security council, unlike the EU. You'd be amazed how much influence that buys, along with a willingness to apply military force (got some shiney new aircraft carriers now) and a history of sharing our language and culture with the world (re; having previously invaded... most of the known world, and having premier league football). Oh, and our Foreign Office is the one government department with a history of not being pants on head insane and actually commands a lot of respect abroad (because basically we're sneaky with access to a lot of capital and loose morals when required).

That's for the UK populace to decide, not you or me. That's why it's called a democratic process.

I'm still waiting to see how you're going to get the EU to agree to your "every five years we might change our mind" approach? The level of naivety of what would be involved in that process would qualify someone for a place in the nativity, and not as one of the three wise men.

 Ketara wrote:
So would doing a Nordic style deal involve leaving or staying with the EU? I mean, it would involve Article 50 and meet your criteria, but we'd still be involved to a heavy degree.

It would qualify as leaving, yes.

A Town Called Malus wrote:The issue is, even if the remain side were to actually try and debate in good faith it wouldn't have worked due to the populist nature of the Leave campaign.

Except that the reverse of that is actually true, due to something called "Status Quo Bias". Basically it's much, much harder to get people to embrace some sort of change than it is to just let them keep doing what they were doing before. A good example of this is one of my sisters, who was unsure either way and wasn't strongly swayed by either sides arguments. In the end she voted to remain, not because she's a devotee of the EU and its vision of ever closer union, but simply because of status quo bias. She voted to stick with the thing she knew. It's one of the reasons we get governments that remain in power across several elections, even if they're not performing that well. For many people who are undecided It's just easier to vote for something you know (the tories) than something that is unknown (Corbyn).

When your opposition just throws out everything that it thinks sounds good, at a machine gun rate of fire, without worrying about whether or not it is factually accurate or possible to achieve, you cannot keep up with debunking everything.... When the debunkers finally catch up with you, you instead switch to discredit them rather than try to defend your positions ("Tired of experts"/"Project fear"/"Fake news"). By that point you've solidified a core of rabid followers due to you promising each of them their own personal moon, sun and stars and they've bought in enough that to accept that they've been scammed would be a huge kick in their ego, so it is easier for them to just go along with it and actually believe that it is the other side which is making stuff up to ruin their wondrous brexit/president rather than pointing out serious issues.

Like - just for examples sake - if the government were to produce a document from the Treasury that was made up on the fly, threatening half a million job losses at best and 800,000 odd at worst, along with a crippling recession, were the country to vote Leave? A document which has that air of being written by people that know what they're doing (it was produced by the treasury after all), even if it proved to be complete rubbish, as was noted by some within a day of its release, but which got picked up by the media and just endlessly repeated as fact, despite its being complete nonsense, which in turn proved quite hard to counter with people that didn't/don't really understand economics. And by the time the debunkers had caught up with it, the remain camp switched to discrediting leave voters by calling them fascists, racists, bigots etc. And by that point they had acquired a rabid core of followers who had been promised that there wouldn't be any steps towards ever closer union and that the path of prosperity, milk, honey and all the wealth you could dream of lay with the EU, who are unable to accept that they'd been scammed by Osbourne and co as it would be a huge kick in their ego, so it's easier for the to just go along with it and actually believe that it is the other side which is making stuff up to ruin their place in the wonderous EU paradise?

Like that you mean?

Mr Morden wrote:The Leave campaign was criminally dishonest. The Remain campaign was criminally incompetent and arrogant.

Granted, it's probably just hyperbole, but I'm interested in whether you think anyone on the leave side was actually criminally dishonest? Unlike, say, a certain chancellor of the exchequer who authorised the release of an official treasury document that was later proven to be a complete pack of lies while also allowing the remain campaign to circumvent the cap on campaign spending?

Whirlwind wrote:Only a few thought recession would be immediately forthcoming, the more sensible reports suggest that we would see a period of decline.

See above about the treasury document and how warmly and eagerly it was embraced by the remain campaign, official and otherwise. Or is this an example of the 'post-truth era' in action?

My anecdotal impression is that retailers are having a bad Xmas.

As a counter anecdote from someone involved in retailing (Christmas Day is my next day off ) aside from the country grinding to a complete halt the other day because of a few hours worth of snow, things have looked quite good down these parts. I've kept surpassing budgets without having to do too much special. Everyone else around seems to be doing quite well, even despite the cold and the allure of the Internet.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:


To be honest Sadiq Khan seems to be the best politician we have right now...

Now you really are pulling my chain. That wally?

At least with SNP you do seem to have a party that wants to try and correct some of the problems with society. The recent changes to Income Tax where the poorest are helped and the wealthiest pay a bit more is definitely the correct direction to go in. The type of policy and idea I'd support.

If by "wealthiest", you include anyone earning over £33,000 which includes a good portion of public sector workers in Scotland and a great many other people not even close to being wealthy. I guess they're on the wealthiest end, but not by much.

*Edited to fix html error*

bouncingboredom wrote:


Sorry, got carried away. TL;DR An IKEA joke, a Theresa May joke, and there is no fixed pie.

Barring that was very rambling, to make one point. But yes at any one time there is a fixed amount of pie. What you are detailing is how that pie develops or grows (or declines) over time which is not up for argument. However at any one point there is only a certain amounts assets, production and so on. Any other solution means there is an infinite potential from the worlds resources (including human labour) on any day and we are just not utilising it. But then that is plainly ridiculous as there is only a limited number of people and a third are asleep at any one time. We are not talking about potential at any one time. We are talking about how the pie changes over time and how even with growth you can have growth of that pie but end up with a smaller portion of it (and hence the overall influence on the pie becomes less)

Wrong. People in Ethiopia couldn't care less how muck of a share of the global market they possess. What matters is how are they doing in relation to themselves, growing or receeding? It's the same for us. By your logic we'd be doing brilliantly if the rest of the world was disappearing down the toilet hole but we were still sliding down the sides. Following your logic, the last human left alive after a nuclear apocolypse would be at the peak of possible human economic output, having achieved 100% of the global share of GDP.

Strictly speaking yes you would be correct, but then that last person would also then have a 100% say in everything that went forward. So from an economic perspective they would be in the driving seat. However I'm not sure the economics of post WWIII really add much to the conversation (btw it's *apocalypse*). The argument is though that by having a larger share of the world economic system the voice is louder and has more say on the influence that brings. Having less growth and dwindling share will result in less economic power overall (even if it means that we are sliding down the toilet bowl slower to use your analogy. But then I'd prefer that than charging headlong into the diarrhoea if the whole world was going down. I do appreciate that everyone in recession is not a good thing, but I keep coming back to the point that you originally raised in that every remainer jumped on the recession is going to happen immediately which isn't correct and that others have larger longer term concerns than a relatively arbitrary growth/reduction scale in absolute sense especially when we exclude the WWIII scenarios (which at that point we don't really have to worry about global economic output anyway).

We can have growth but if other countries/groups (like the EU) are growing at double the rate (as is the case)

Which it isn't. Quite aside from the fact that we're still in the EU.

There are plenty of figures that compare the UK and the EU27 countries. They've been posted on here several times. Go and search for them if you want the actual information

then we our global position is weakening because the share of that limited pie is substantially decreasing.

There is no pie.

This growth compounds over time so that double can become a much larger figure over time than the difference would suggest.

Wrong. The reverse is actually true.

Wrong. Inflation is not tied to the value of your currency (which is where purchasing power parity resides). In the modern world currency still has an impact on inflation, but the two are not the same. Observe the historical nature of price inflation in cities during sieges for an example of this effect. Or the fact that the Pound dropped significantly more against the dollar than inflation has risen in the UK.

I'm not sure how you can even argue this. If our growth is 1% for two years then the overall growth is 2.01%. If it is 2% then the overall growth is 4.04%. That's a factor of 2.01 increase over the original date. That compounds over and over given time. I'm not sure what our growth since 2008 has anything to do with things. All you are pointing out is that by being in the EU means our growth is larger than the EU and hence giving us a greater economic voice over time. Since we decided to leave that trend has reversed. Your argument seems to be pointing out exactly what I'm saying about leaving.

I'm happy to stand corrected but I'm not sure any EU city or country is currently under siege so I'm not sure how that is in anyway relevant. . And there was also never any argument that the exchange rate directly relates to an inflationary increase, I'm not even sure what your point is. If inflation goes up faster than the economic output then the country can afford less. We can already see this with things like Hinkley Point and the Trident replacement where the costs have gone. That means less money for other things. We haven't had the economic growth to counter these cost pressures.

Wrong. The reason we're talking about the economy and GDP like this is because you have quite literally been arguing that we're in a type of recession.

Depends on your point of view. Recession is just a government methodology. For a lot of people (more than average numbers) they are in recession because they can't afford to buy as much as they use to.

Wrong. You can jump on a plane in London and be in Beijing in less than a day. There you can do business before returning home again. You do realise that after Brexit we're not going to suddenly shut all the doors and windows and start chasing people away with brooms right? One of the key opportunities of Brexit is the ability to escape the EU's narrow minded view of trade and to open our economy in a bold new direction. We also have nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the UN security council, unlike the EU. You'd be amazed how much influence that buys, along with a willingness to apply military force (got some shiney new aircraft carriers now) and a history of sharing our language and culture with the world (re; having previously invaded... most of the known world, and having premier league football). Oh, and our Foreign Office is the one government department with a history of not being pants on head insane and actually commands a lot of respect abroad (because basically we're sneaky with access to a lot of capital and loose morals when required).

We have a seat on the UN security council because each of them has an overriding veto on the issue. The UK is unlikely to give up such a position just like any other Country wouldn't. The EU does have a seat anyway indirectly through France. However when we consider voted positions (such as on the World court) we are losing influence. And what would the EU's narrow minded view of trade be, do you mean to hell with the consequences and just trash the planet for a few coins? Open trade regardless of how obnoxious the country may be. And I see we are back the fascism route again . If someone disagrees and we don't get what we want we'll apply military force. Fortunately we won't have any aircraft to use on those aircraft carriers to pursue those dreams... .

I'm still waiting to see how you're going to get the EU to agree to your "every five years we might change our mind" approach? The level of naivety of what would be involved in that process would qualify someone for a place in the nativity, and not as one of the three wise men.

Back to insults again I see? There would be no reason why there can't be an agreement in how this work. In principle (assuming the Tories aren't completely incompetent) you'll have an agreement that is ready yo go in a few years. Should a leave vote win then you apply that from a specified date. With a remain we get what we already have. We'd still lose some things because of the potential unreliability, but it's not unworkable. You just set a date from when things apply from (something May is trying to do already).

As a counter anecdote from someone involved in retailing (Christmas Day is my next day off ) aside from the country grinding to a complete halt the other day because of a few hours worth of snow, things have looked quite good down these parts. I've kept surpassing budgets without having to do too much special. Everyone else around seems to be doing quite well, even despite the cold and the allure of the Internet.

We'll have to see on this one, not everyone is going to struggle, wealthier areas probably see less impacts. We know sales by value are up especially on food, but by volume is down in November. I never think that Boxing Day sales starting early (more than week before is a good indication of issues (i.e. done to increase sales at the expense of post Xmas sales).

To be honest Sadiq Khan seems to be the best politician we have right now...

Now you really are pulling my chain. That wally?

Any reason for this or just a general statement without evidence?

If by "wealthiest", you include anyone earning over £33,000 which includes a good portion of public sector workers in Scotland and a great many other people not even close to being wealthy. I guess they're on the wealthiest end, but not by much.

Average wage in Scotland is about £27500 so quite a bit above this (so affects probably about 30% of the population)

I think a lot of the economic stuff above is ultimately just two parties talking past each other. One talks about the macro, the other instead refers to perceptions and links it to the micro, the other responds by linking perceptions to that of historical trends, and so on. You're actually both right for the larger part of it.

-We are not in actual recession (the economy is growing).

-Growth is not high in comparison to certain other economies right now, but we have outperformed most of them until recently. It is also usually easier to achieve a larger percentage of growth immediately after having been in a recession, as the economy recovers and that figure then stabilises. So it's not great that we're showing poorer growth, but it's not nearly as bad as a simple comparison as like for like indicates without taking into account other factors.

-Having a smaller overall percentage of the total amount of world trade is not necessarily a bad thing. This is because so long as the actual amount of world trade/wealth/pie/whatever term you use is still increasing, it is possible to have a smaller overall percentage, but a higher amount than before in real terms.

-Despite not being in an actual recession, people can feel as if they are in one somewhat if their earning power is reduced. This can be achieved through property values increasing out of reach, basic living costs increasing whilst wages remain stagnant, and so on. Such things are never quite as bad as an actual recession however, because a recession has all of the same things plus lots of companies going bankrupt and raising unemployment/actively depressing wages. Nonetheless, the perception does mean something, and it is the case that being in growth does not automatically equate to everything going well.

-Trying to estimate economic conditions in even fifteen years time is a fool's game that consistently goes wrong in 99% of cases. No trend lasts forever, real world events always end up altering conditions more and more substantially the further from the present you get. There are likely to be times after Brexit that are bad, and times that are good. Beyond that? Who can say what state the world will be in a decade from now.

-Likewise, talking about an 'economic voice' or position is, for the most part, not particularly relevant to anything. It's like talking about someone's 'diplomatic voice'; there is something to it, but its so intangible as to be impossible to pin down, and it originates from a thousand other more concrete factors.

our editing was a bit all over the place so forgive me if things end up out of place;

 Whirlwind wrote:
We are talking about how the pie changes over time and how even with growth you can have growth of that pie but end up with a smaller portion of it (and hence the overall influence on the pie becomes less)

You don't seem to be getting this idea that your percentage of this now infamous global pie is virtually irrelevant. What matters is how your economy is fairing in relation to itself. If it's growing, things are going well. If it's receeding = bad. Trying to shift the goal posts and pretend there's some sort of fantasy recession taking place because that would serve your position is just a waste of everyones time.

Strictly speaking yes you would be correct, but then that last person would also then have a 100% say in everything that went forward. So from an economic perspective they would be in the driving seat

Driving what, a cockroach drawn cart?

However I'm not sure the economics of post WWIII really add much to the conversation (btw it's *apocalypse*).

Given the state of some of your spelling and grammar errors, you're probably well advised not to get too haughty. The point of the example was to demonstrate that under your definition of what success looks like economically, the last man/woman on Earth after the rest of the world has burned away would have achieved a perfect economic position in your model, irrespective of the fact that they now live alone on a desolate wasteland. It's an extreme example designed to highlight the absurdity of your position.

The argument is though that by having a larger share of the world economic system the voice is louder and has more say on the influence that brings. Having less growth and dwindling share will result in less economic power overall (even if it means that we are sliding down the toilet bowl slower to use your analogy. But then I'd prefer that than charging headlong into the diarrhoea if the whole world was going down.

I'm not sure you understand how geopolitics works. How has Germany been getting on the last few decades when it comes to influencing American global policy vs how the economically smaller UK has fared?

... but I keep coming back to the point that you originally raised in that every remainer jumped on the recession is going to happen immediately which isn't correct and that others have larger longer term concerns than a relatively arbitrary growth/reduction scale in absolute sense

When that treasury document came out, the remain side was all over it like a rash. Right here in this thread you've been trying to convince us that despite the economy being in growth, we're in some kind of quasi-recession that you've invented. Though it now seems you're trying to back out of that and now it's become about longer term concerns.

There are plenty of figures that compare the UK and the EU27 countries. They've been posted on here several times. Go and search for them if you want the actual information

I've been keeping an eye on them for a while as it happens. The annual comparison is 1.5% to 2.5%, which isn't double. I guess to match the EU what we really need is a bunch of allied economies that have been in the dumps for several years to come help us out by making our overall growth figures look better.

I'm not sure how you can even argue this. If our growth is 1% for two years then the overall growth is 2.01%. If it is 2% then the overall growth is 4.04%. That's a factor of 2.01 increase over the original date. That compounds over and over given time. I'm not sure what our growth since 2008 has anything to do with things. All you are pointing out is that by being in the EU means our growth is larger than the EU and hence giving us a greater economic voice over time. Since we decided to leave that trend has reversed. Your argument seems to be pointing out exactly what I'm saying about leaving.

It only seems that way because you don't seem to have a clue about any of this. You don't see to understand the concept that as an economy grows in size it becomes progressively harder to sustain a certain percentage growth rate, because each year the raw figure in pounds and pence terms has risen. 2% growth for this year will be harder to achieve than 2% growth was last year, because the baseline figure you're measuring against is 2% bigger than it was last year. I pointed out our growth history vs the eurozone because you need to understand that we've ended up so far ahead of them that it becomes progressively harder for us to sustain that level of growth with each passing year. Spain finds it easy because until a few years ago they were in a serious recession, from which it is very easy to recover. Our government policy isn't helping. Also keep in mind that we've wound up most of our quantitative easing, while the EU central bank is still part way through the process.

I'm happy to stand corrected but I'm not sure any EU city or country is currently under siege so I'm not sure how that is in anyway relevant. .

I'm hoping you understand the context of what I was saying, but given the way things are going I'm not so sure.

And there was also never any argument that the exchange rate directly relates to an inflationary increase, I'm not even sure what your point is.

Because you were trying to tie inflation to purchasing power parity, when it's the currency value that affects this.

That means less money for other things. We haven't had the economic growth to counter these cost pressures.

No, you've conflated wages with economic growth. If wages don't rise with inflation then people have less money. As was discussed much further back in the thread (might have been the GW share price thread? I might be mistaking the two), we've enjoyed almost a decade of wages outstripping inflation (which strongly suggests our currency was over valued even before the referendum result brought the pound down a peg or two). This is how come you don't see everyone grovelling on their knees to their boss looking for a pay rise, because we already had a decent cushion to absorb the increase. And once again we need to point out that the economy has grown.

Depends on your point of view. Recession is just a government methodology.

No, let's start this sort of thing again. Recession is a very specific, very defined term. It has nothing to do with points of view and it is not a government methodology. A country is either in recession or it isn't. Ours is not.

We have a seat on the UN security council because each of them has an overriding veto on the issue. The UK is unlikely to give up such a position just like any other Country wouldn't. The EU does have a seat anyway indirectly through France.

Aside from being amused at the idea that you think France will act in any way other than what is in the interests of France, you're basically agreeing that that the UK will not lose its seat. So its influence on that stage will not be diminished in any shape or form.

And what would the EU's narrow minded view of trade be, do you mean to hell with the consequences and just trash the planet for a few coins? Open trade regardless of how obnoxious the country may be?

No, I mean the EU's idea of trade is to do everything it can to avoid opening its market in any way shape or form. Canada is already starting to murmur with a pang of regret about the deal it signed. The EU talks a good talk about trying to help countries in Africa for example, while quietly using every non-tariff barrier to trade that it can to prevent African farmers from getting their produce into the EU market. The EU is concerned chiefly with protectionism and very little with what is actually good for its citizens.

And I see we are back the fascism route again . If someone disagrees and we don't get what we want we'll apply military force

I'm not sure you understand what the term fascism actually means. For example you don't see the irony in calling people fascists while arguing that the result of a democratic vote should be over turned because it delivered the wrong result. You're probably best not using that term till you've looked it up in a dictionary. Besides, who said anything about applying military force to people we disagree with? I mentioned the carriers as an example of how we'll be better able to contribute effectively to future coalition operations against organisations like ISIS and the influence that brings with it.

Fortunately we won't have any aircraft to use on those aircraft carriers to pursue those dreams... .

I hate to tell you this, but we already do. They're undergoing qualification testing in the US and are due to marry up with the Carrier fairly soon, providing everything stays on schedule. You seem oddly excited though by the thought of the UK not getting any planes?

Back to insults again I see? There would be no reason why there can't be an agreement in how this work. In principle (assuming the Tories aren't completely incompetent) you'll have an agreement that is ready yo go in a few years. Should a leave vote win then you apply that from a specified date. With a remain we get what we already have. We'd still lose some things because of the potential unreliability, but it's not unworkable. You just set a date from when things apply from

No, it's not workable. The reason I'm calling you naive is because you're showing a truly staggering lack of understanding about politics. I honestly just can't put it into any better words. You seem to think we could magically flip flop back and forth between being in or out every five years and that this would have no consequences for the economy, and that the EU would be totally chill with this.

We'll have to see on this one, not everyone is going to struggle, wealthier areas probably see less impacts. We know sales by value are up especially on food, but by volume is down in November. I never think that Boxing Day sales starting early (more than week before is a good indication of issues (i.e. done to increase sales at the expense of post Xmas sales).

I do not live in a wealthy area just for reference. The fact that sales are up by value, presuming they've been adjusted for the exchange rate, should be seen as a good sign. It means people are spending more money. As for sales, you have to remember that last year we tried that whole Black Friday business in this country and people went mental. This year people largely didn't bother with it, not least because of the chaos that it caused last year. Retailers are trying to compensate for this.

Any reason for this or just a general statement without evidence?

I don't need evidence to think Sadiq Khan is a wally. It's an opinion. Or are you the thought police now? If you're that interested, he hasn't really done anything apart from promote himself endlessly and shut down Uber in order to protect Labour voting taxi drivers from having to compete for fares. I've certainly seen no evidence that would lead me to think of him as being the best poltician in the country at the moment.

Average wage in Scotland is about £27500 so quite a bit above this (so affects probably about 30% of the population)

Lol, it's not that far over the average. You also seem to be omitting the point that someone on £30,000 a year is not exactly raking it left right and centre. They're doing well, but calling nurses and coppers wealthy is something of a stretch.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
.

OT - Checked out your brothers band, not a band tune that.

All I can say is if England built walls of stone like their walls of text, the entire island would be fortified to a degree that they'd never need fear foreign refugees, though trade might be a bit tricky.

 Ketara wrote:


-Growth is not high in comparison to certain other economies right now, but we have outperformed most of them until recently. It is also usually easier to achieve a larger percentage of growth immediately after having been in a recession, as the economy recovers and that figure then stabilises. So it's not great that we're showing poorer growth, but it's not nearly as bad as a simple comparison as like for like indicates without taking into account other factors.

The question is why. Has there been any fundamental change in the British economy that has caused it to lag behind other economies of similar makeup? (big, western countries with a developed service sector).

The fundamentals haven't really changed much, and Brexit is pretty much the only explanation for the UK growing very modestly at the time other big, western economies with a developed service sector are growing significantly more.

The only question left is whether Brexit is just a short-term shock or a long-term liability to Britain's future growth prospects. Arguing that he UK is not in a recession when everyone around is having sound growth figures is missing the wood for the trees. Especially when Brexit hasn't actually happened.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Spoiler:

our editing was a bit all over the place so forgive me if things end up out of place;
T

 Whirlwind wrote:
We are talking about how the pie changes over time and how even with growth you can have growth of that pie but end up with a smaller portion of it (and hence the overall influence on the pie becomes less)

You don't seem to be getting this idea that your percentage of this now infamous global pie is virtually irrelevant. What matters is how your economy is fairing in relation to itself. If it's growing, things are going well. If it's receeding = bad. Trying to shift the goal posts and pretend there's some sort of fantasy recession taking place because that would serve your position is just a waste of everyones time.

Strictly speaking yes you would be correct, but then that last person would also then have a 100% say in everything that went forward. So from an economic perspective they would be in the driving seat

Driving what, a cockroach drawn cart?

However I'm not sure the economics of post WWIII really add much to the conversation (btw it's *apocalypse*).

Given the state of some of your spelling and grammar errors, you're probably well advised not to get too haughty. The point of the example was to demonstrate that under your definition of what success looks like economically, the last man/woman on Earth after the rest of the world has burned away would have achieved a perfect economic position in your model, irrespective of the fact that they now live alone on a desolate wasteland. It's an extreme example designed to highlight the absurdity of your position.

The argument is though that by having a larger share of the world economic system the voice is louder and has more say on the influence that brings. Having less growth and dwindling share will result in less economic power overall (even if it means that we are sliding down the toilet bowl slower to use your analogy. But then I'd prefer that than charging headlong into the diarrhoea if the whole world was going down.

I'm not sure you understand how geopolitics works. How has Germany been getting on the last few decades when it comes to influencing American global policy vs how the economically smaller UK has fared?

... but I keep coming back to the point that you originally raised in that every remainer jumped on the recession is going to happen immediately which isn't correct and that others have larger longer term concerns than a relatively arbitrary growth/reduction scale in absolute sense

When that treasury document came out, the remain side was all over it like a rash. Right here in this thread you've been trying to convince us that despite the economy being in growth, we're in some kind of quasi-recession that you've invented. Though it now seems you're trying to back out of that and now it's become about longer term concerns.

There are plenty of figures that compare the UK and the EU27 countries. They've been posted on here several times. Go and search for them if you want the actual information

I've been keeping an eye on them for a while as it happens. The annual comparison is 1.5% to 2.5%, which isn't double. I guess to match the EU what we really need is a bunch of allied economies that have been in the dumps for several years to come help us out by making our overall growth figures look better.

I'm not sure how you can even argue this. If our growth is 1% for two years then the overall growth is 2.01%. If it is 2% then the overall growth is 4.04%. That's a factor of 2.01 increase over the original date. That compounds over and over given time. I'm not sure what our growth since 2008 has anything to do with things. All you are pointing out is that by being in the EU means our growth is larger than the EU and hence giving us a greater economic voice over time. Since we decided to leave that trend has reversed. Your argument seems to be pointing out exactly what I'm saying about leaving.

It only seems that way because you don't seem to have a clue about any of this. You don't see to understand the concept that as an economy grows in size it becomes progressively harder to sustain a certain percentage growth rate, because each year the raw figure in pounds and pence terms has risen. 2% growth for this year will be harder to achieve than 2% growth was last year, because the baseline figure you're measuring against is 2% bigger than it was last year. I pointed out our growth history vs the eurozone because you need to understand that we've ended up so far ahead of them that it becomes progressively harder for us to sustain that level of growth with each passing year. Spain finds it easy because until a few years ago they were in a serious recession, from which it is very easy to recover. Our government policy isn't helping. Also keep in mind that we've wound up most of our quantitative easing, while the EU central bank is still part way through the process.

I'm happy to stand corrected but I'm not sure any EU city or country is currently under siege so I'm not sure how that is in anyway relevant. .

I'm hoping you understand the context of what I was saying, but given the way things are going I'm not so sure.

And there was also never any argument that the exchange rate directly relates to an inflationary increase, I'm not even sure what your point is.

Because you were trying to tie inflation to purchasing power parity, when it's the currency value that affects this.

That means less money for other things. We haven't had the economic growth to counter these cost pressures.

No, you've conflated wages with economic growth. If wages don't rise with inflation then people have less money. As was discussed much further back in the thread (might have been the GW share price thread? I might be mistaking the two), we've enjoyed almost a decade of wages outstripping inflation (which strongly suggests our currency was over valued even before the referendum result brought the pound down a peg or two). This is how come you don't see everyone grovelling on their knees to their boss looking for a pay rise, because we already had a decent cushion to absorb the increase. And once again we need to point out that the economy has grown.

Depends on your point of view. Recession is just a government methodology.

No, let's start this sort of thing again. Recession is a very specific, very defined term. It has nothing to do with points of view and it is not a government methodology. A country is either in recession or it isn't. Ours is not.

We have a seat on the UN security council because each of them has an overriding veto on the issue. The UK is unlikely to give up such a position just like any other Country wouldn't. The EU does have a seat anyway indirectly through France.

Aside from being amused at the idea that you think France will act in any way other than what is in the interests of France, you're basically agreeing that that the UK will not lose its seat. So its influence on that stage will not be diminished in any shape or form.

And what would the EU's narrow minded view of trade be, do you mean to hell with the consequences and just trash the planet for a few coins? Open trade regardless of how obnoxious the country may be?

No, I mean the EU's idea of trade is to do everything it can to avoid opening its market in any way shape or form. Canada is already starting to murmur with a pang of regret about the deal it signed. The EU talks a good talk about trying to help countries in Africa for example, while quietly using every non-tariff barrier to trade that it can to prevent African farmers from getting their produce into the EU market. The EU is concerned chiefly with protectionism and very little with what is actually good for its citizens.

And I see we are back the fascism route again . If someone disagrees and we don't get what we want we'll apply military force

I'm not sure you understand what the term fascism actually means. For example you don't see the irony in calling people fascists while arguing that the result of a democratic vote should be over turned because it delivered the wrong result. You're probably best not using that term till you've looked it up in a dictionary. Besides, who said anything about applying military force to people we disagree with? I mentioned the carriers as an example of how we'll be better able to contribute effectively to future coalition operations against organisations like ISIS and the influence that brings with it.

Fortunately we won't have any aircraft to use on those aircraft carriers to pursue those dreams... .

I hate to tell you this, but we already do. They're undergoing qualification testing in the US and are due to marry up with the Carrier fairly soon, providing everything stays on schedule. You seem oddly excited though by the thought of the UK not getting any planes?

Back to insults again I see? There would be no reason why there can't be an agreement in how this work. In principle (assuming the Tories aren't completely incompetent) you'll have an agreement that is ready yo go in a few years. Should a leave vote win then you apply that from a specified date. With a remain we get what we already have. We'd still lose some things because of the potential unreliability, but it's not unworkable. You just set a date from when things apply from

No, it's not workable. The reason I'm calling you naive is because you're showing a truly staggering lack of understanding about politics. I honestly just can't put it into any better words. You seem to think we could magically flip flop back and forth between being in or out every five years and that this would have no consequences for the economy, and that the EU would be totally chill with this.

We'll have to see on this one, not everyone is going to struggle, wealthier areas probably see less impacts. We know sales by value are up especially on food, but by volume is down in November. I never think that Boxing Day sales starting early (more than week before is a good indication of issues (i.e. done to increase sales at the expense of post Xmas sales).

I do not live in a wealthy area just for reference. The fact that sales are up by value, presuming they've been adjusted for the exchange rate, should be seen as a good sign. It means people are spending more money. As for sales, you have to remember that last year we tried that whole Black Friday business in this country and people went mental. This year people largely didn't bother with it, not least because of the chaos that it caused last year. Retailers are trying to compensate for this.

Any reason for this or just a general statement without evidence?

I don't need evidence to think Sadiq Khan is a wally. It's an opinion. Or are you the thought police now? If you're that interested, he hasn't really done anything apart from promote himself endlessly and shut down Uber in order to protect Labour voting taxi drivers from having to compete for fares. I've certainly seen no evidence that would lead me to think of him as being the best poltician in the country at the moment.

Average wage in Scotland is about £27500 so quite a bit above this (so affects probably about 30% of the population)

Lol, it's not that far over the average. You also seem to be omitting the point that someone on £30,000 a year is not exactly raking it left right and centre. They're doing well, but calling nurses and coppers wealthy is something of a stretch.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
.

OT - Checked out your brothers band, not a band tune that.

TLDR
If you're looking for examples of arguments designed to either bore the gak out of people, or completely fail to convince anyone of your arguments, you can do worse than copy this chap.
You've certainly chosen an apt name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
...It really would help get Remainers on board if they were presented with something better than the dreadful state of drift, irresolution and sheer incompentence that the government has been displaying for the past 18 months.

Absolutely this. At the moment, nothing convinces remainers that this is a terrible idea that should be totally resisted, than the rabid frothing of hard brexiteers, and talk of traitors and saboteurs.
The leave side have made absolutely no effort to try and bring pro-EU, and waiverers along, and frankly it causes people to dig their heels in. Threats and recriminations do nothing to promote positivity and teamwork, and no one on Leave has grasped that.
If there was less fear and anger on the Leave side, then maybe they would get more support, as it us, they're getting none.

Someone needs to convince us that they are not all nutcase idealogues who want to see us crash out of our biggest trading deal, and provide a reasoned, and reasonable, alternative. If they did that, they'd probably be surprised at the support they'd receive.

Rather than just attacking us they need to give us some idea of there it is going. At the moment it basically seems to go:

Leaver: We voted to leave the EU. You should all get behind it!

Remain: Ok. I'm fine to get behind it as long as you give me a reasonable plan and something to get behind.

Leaver: Stop trying to derail everything! The UK voted to leave.

Remain: I know we did. It was a very slim margin, but I know we are leaving, but you need to give me a good idea of what your vision is so I can decide if it is the kind of country I want to live in.

Leaver: YOU HAVE NO SAY ANYMORE! THERE WAS A VOTE!

Remain: I know. I accept the what, but still want input in to the how.

Leaver: TRATOR! BREXIT MEANS BREXIT.

And so on. I am feeling that many still in the leave camp (or the loudest) only want to leave the EU for ideological reasons and have no good arguments.

I've largely given up trying to ask what I need to do to make it a success, or where any of the upsides come from.

But I guess that's always the case when there are so many different views on what a brexit is.

Herzlos wrote:
But I guess that's always the case when there are so many different views on what a brexit is.

I believe it is a kind of large blancmange.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
But I guess that's always the case when there are so many different views on what a brexit is.

I believe it is a kind of large blancmange.

Nah that sounds too European.

Its definitely some kind of pie. Like a shepards pie.

I’m amazed the average wage in Scotland is £27,500, but it’s likely skewed by a few very high earners. I bet average wage would look quite a bit different if you excluded the top few percent of earners from your calculation, say base an average on the 95th percentile. That gives you a real impression of the spending power of the majority. I’m not on much more than that as a teacher on a London pay weighting. And people wonder why staff retention is so low in London schools when no one can afford a home.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I’m amazed the average wage in Scotland is £27,500, but it’s likely skewed by a few very high earners. I bet average wage would look quite a bit different if you excluded the top few percent of earners from your calculation, say base an average on the 95th percentile. That gives you a real impression of the spending power of the majority. I’m not on much more than that as a teacher on a London pay weighting. And people wonder why staff retention is so low in London schools when no one can afford a home.

Yeah I don't get it either since the national average wage is supposedly ~£24k, and that includes part-time workers. So I wonder if the £27,500 is just full time employees, but even then that's above minimum wage so must be skewed.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I’m amazed the average wage in Scotland is £27,500, but it’s likely skewed by a few very high earners. I bet average wage would look quite a bit different if you excluded the top few percent of earners from your calculation, say base an average on the 95th percentile. That gives you a real impression of the spending power of the majority. I’m not on much more than that as a teacher on a London pay weighting. And people wonder why staff retention is so low in London schools when no one can afford a home.

That would depend on the average used. If it is the mean wage, then yes. If it is the median wage, then no.

Looking on here: http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S5/SB_16-92_Earnings_in_Scotland_2016.pdf the median gross annual pay for full time employees for Scotland (in 2016) is £27,953, compared to £28,213 for the whole of the UK.

However when you break it down by region then Scotland ranks third for highest median gross weekly pay for full time workers, behind London and the South East of England.

 Steve steveson wrote:

And so on. I am feeling that many still in the leave camp (or the loudest) only want to leave the EU for ideological reasons and have no good arguments.

This.

Or sheer stubbornness.

jouso wrote:

The fundamentals haven't really changed much, and Brexit is pretty much the only explanation for the UK growing very modestly at the time other big, western economies with a developed service sector are growing significantly more.

I very much agree. Frankly, I was expecting a minor recession, and it's actually a mark of the resilience of the UK economy (and a demonstration that the pound was rather overinflated) that it hasn't happened yet, through the most uncertain part. If it were Spain in our position, they'd be thrashing around in the middle of a very nasty economic storm about now.

As you say:

The only question left is whether Brexit is just a short-term shock or a long-term liability to Britain's future growth prospects.

This is the crunch point. I personally would speculate that it'll be a short term shock, but our long term prospects will be roughly the same once things settle down. It's the nature of capitalism that we were likely to have a minor recession at some point in the period anyway, we are just likely to have a rather stagnant patch in the middle on top. Which isn't earth shatteringly awful in and of itself, Japan has put up with such a thing for the longest time.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/iain-duncan-smith-british-business-eu-trade-learn-to-get-by-brexit-2017-12



... err thanks.

.. seem to recall being told over and over again the exact opposite of this and how it was going to be all sunshine and effortless trade deals propelling us into some awesome future.

Inequality, air pollution, tax dodging, poverty: we can't afford the cost of putting these things right.

But Brexit? Damn the cost consequences.

elsewhere..



this would presumably be the overtime we can already do yeah ?

I seem to recall things like rights cropping up before..





they don't seem terribly compatible views there.





http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/workers-rights-brexit-bonfire-begins.html?m=1


hail to the new chief, remarkably like the old chief.

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

The fundamentals haven't really changed much, and Brexit is pretty much the only explanation for the UK growing very modestly at the time other big, western economies with a developed service sector are growing significantly more.

I very much agree. Frankly, I was expecting a minor recession, and it's actually a mark of the resilience of the UK economy (and a demonstration that the pound was rather overinflated) that it hasn't happened yet, through the most uncertain part. If it were Spain in our position, they'd be thrashing around in the middle of a very nasty economic storm about now.

Thing is, Brexit hasn't happened yet. This is just people betting on one thing or the totally opposite.

It all hinges on the terms the trade deal is struck.

So the BBC has decided to try and declare an Xmas truce asking people to say one thing good about the opposite position.

From my point of view I think that the EU as a trading block and common market was a laudable and admirable aim.

Anyone else?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

Anyone else?

The EU does have a lot of inneficiencies and pointless regulation that needs to be addressed.

At least it's largely made Farage go away on a semi-permanent basis, meaning I need no longer be subjected to racist, bigoted bile and lies spewing from his frog like face?