You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > General Election 2017
November 1 2024 3.13pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 53 of 450 < 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 >

  

steeleye20 Flag Croydon 21 Apr 17 6.07pm Send a Private Message to steeleye20 Add steeleye20 as a friend

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

I don't really have any other figures to go on, I'm afraid. Do you?

I concede that not everything can be a fiddle.

regards

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 21 Apr 17 6.17pm Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

Not entirely credible, as it's the LSE, but I get the impression you're the type to lap up whatever they say:

[Link]

Most forecasters predicted that the impact of Brexit on the economy and investment would be negative even in the short term. They definitely have been proved wrong. The UK’s real GDP grew by 2% in 2016, well above predictions. Since the referendum, the country’s economy has grown faster than that of the eurozone. Business investment, employment and stock market performance have all exceeded expectations.

According to UNCTAD, inward FDI to the UK surged to US9 billion in 2016, the second highest in the world, behind the US, representing a six-fold increase over the 2015 total (when the UK ranked 12th). Of the total, 1 billion was due to one mega-deal acquisition, but notably this was finalised after the Brexit referendum.

As for the IMF, I don't "try to use" the stats in any shape or form: I referred to them, and did so qualitatively. Your claim I "tried" (and presumably failed) to "use them" in an unqualified way is utterly pathetic and decidedly condescending. I said "Another upwards growth adjustment from the IMF". Is this incorrect? Was there an upwards growth adjustment, or are they predicting a slowdown?

The claims:
The IMF stated Brexit would trigger a recession. -0.3% GDP growth for Q3 2016.
Lagarde (why isn't she in prison yet?): "Pretty bad to very, very bad".

The reality:
The actual growth was the fastest in the G7.
You are wibbling about a 0.2% downwards adjustment.

Question:
What was the IMF projected growth for 2018 during their scare-fest back before the EU referendum?
Screw it, I'll answer for you (yes, I'll "try to use the stats"

IMF Brexitageddon:
2016: 1.1% (actual growth: +1.8%)
2017: -0.8%
2018: 0.6%

Let's compare to their projections as of now:
2017: 2.0% (+2.8%)
2018: 1.5% (+0.9%)

So yes, well done trying to temper the positive outlook with "but, but, they're DOWNGRADING GROWTH by 0.2% in 2018 - zOMG! OMG!". The IMF has had to issue upwards growth adjustments (from memory) three times since the referendum. Nothing to say they won't do so again for 2018. Nothing to say they will as well - that's the problem with reading tea leaves.

As you seem so very keen to quote Nobel prizewinning Economists (lol - I mean Joseph "the Euro is a threat to the future of Europe" Stiglitz?), perhaps you might introspect somewhat with this, and consider if perhaps you've been "phooled":

[Link]

De todos modos, I'm not really going to be issuing put-downs to each of your posts throughout the run-up to the GE. It would seem you have more time to spend on here than I (though you were sorely missed for the EU to-ing and fro-ing on here), but I'll be sure to have a skim-through and a chuckle as often as I can.


Finally some evidence! However...

Why use IMF figures if you're so critical of them? And if you use them you shouldn't then leave out the bit where they talk about them being MORE pessimistic about the long term than pre-referendum despite upgrading short term estimates. You also ignore the reason for growth and the underlying structural problems in the economy, added to the fact that GDP is a pretty imperfect measure of living standards or how an economy is faring.

That article basically just says most people are confident about FDI post-brexit however this will depend on what deal we end up with. It also talks about opportunities for the UK to deregulate and further cut corporation tax, both of which would be bad for the economy. Also it doesn't really address the fact that much of the 2016 FDI was opportunistic and as a result of a cheap pound. The value of sterling is a barometer of investor confidence in the underlying economy.

The article doesn't deal with what FDI would have been like in the absence of Brexit, just that "it will remain robust, probably".

I'm not sure I get the point of your Akerlof article. Stiglitz' views on the Euro are pretty reasonble, but not sure how they are relevant to either Brexit or the upcoming GE. When mentioning him I've been discussing his work on the causes, impacts and solutions for inequality and how he highlights the damage that it does to an economy.

I readily admit growth figures for 2017 are better than predicted pre referendum but the impact of Brexit positive or negative won't be fully felt simply in the short term. The GDP figures or CEO confidence surveys don't scratch beneath the surface.

I still haven't read anything that says Brexit will be better than the alternative. Just it's not been that bad yet and might not be.


In terms of the GE the Tories deserve to lose irrespective of Brexit for reasons outlined previously.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 21 Apr 17 6.23pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Originally posted by pefwin

That's one out of three. Please give my best regards to your wife I am sure she is a great lovely strong woman.

But can we stay on topic? GE 2017.

What's really sad is not the fact that you are a gobs***e. You know you do nothing to help people of a different 'skin colour or religion'.

What is really sad is that you hate yourself because of your white, middle class privilege. It obviously torments you.

Enjoy whom you are and be proud of it. White, middle class and wealthy. You are encouraging others, rightly, to be proud of themselves. Why can't you be happy as well?

Edited by matt_himself (21 Apr 2017 6.24pm)

 


"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
davenotamonkey Flag 21 Apr 17 6.32pm Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey Add davenotamonkey as a friend

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle


Finally some evidence! However...

Why use IMF figures if you're so critical of them? And if you use them you shouldn't then leave out the bit where they talk about them being MORE pessimistic about the long term than pre-referendum despite upgrading short term estimates. You also ignore the reason for growth and the underlying structural problems in the economy, added to the fact that GDP is a pretty imperfect measure of living standards or how an economy is faring.

That article basically just says most people are confident about FDI post-brexit however this will depend on what deal we end up with. It also talks about opportunities for the UK to deregulate and further cut corporation tax, both of which would be bad for the economy. Also it doesn't really address the fact that much of the 2016 FDI was opportunistic and as a result of a cheap pound. The value of sterling is a barometer of investor confidence in the underlying economy.

The article doesn't deal with what FDI would have been like in the absence of Brexit, just that "it will remain robust, probably".

I'm not sure I get the point of your Akerlof article. Stiglitz' views on the Euro are pretty reasonble, but not sure how they are relevant to either Brexit or the upcoming GE. When mentioning him I've been discussing his work on the causes, impacts and solutions for inequality and how he highlights the damage that it does to an economy.

I readily admit growth figures for 2017 are better than predicted pre referendum but the impact of Brexit positive or negative won't be fully felt simply in the short term. The GDP figures or CEO confidence surveys don't scratch beneath the surface.

I still haven't read anything that says Brexit will be better than the alternative. Just it's not been that bad yet and might not be.


In terms of the GE the Tories deserve to lose irrespective of Brexit for reasons outlined previously.

It really doesn't matter what I post, you will do your best to discredit or deflect, such is your confirmation bias.

Sorry, but yawn! It's Friday PM, and my super-hot "foreign" other half is waiting. Off to buy some foreign-sounding wine and wax lyrical about the Zollverein and other outdated customs unions unfit for the 21st Century.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 21 Apr 17 6.56pm

Originally posted by matt_himself

What do you actually do to better society for the less fortunate?

I home tutor kids with terminal illness. Don't get paid if kids too sick to be tutored.

Many carers are hardly paid anything,
Nurses have to get into a mountain of debt to qualify now, so rather putting money into the economy when they qualify, it goes to the financial/banking sector. Same for teachers and (I may be wrong) police.

It's hardly an incentive to go into these professions is it. Tory policy, fleece those that help society.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 21 Apr 17 7.23pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

I home tutor kids with terminal illness. Don't get paid if kids too sick to be tutored.

Many carers are hardly paid anything,
Nurses have to get into a mountain of debt to qualify now, so rather putting money into the economy when they qualify, it goes to the financial/banking sector. Same for teachers and (I may be wrong) police.

It's hardly an incentive to go into these professions is it. Tory policy, fleece those that help society.

Oh for god sake. They were all driving around in Rolls Royce under Labour were they?

Ridiculous person.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 21 Apr 17 7.28pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Oh for god sake. They were all driving around in Rolls Royce under Labour were they?

Ridiculous person.

No but they didn't have to get into s***loads of debt to work for the public in the public sector.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 21 Apr 17 7.51pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

No but they didn't have to get into s***loads of debt to work for the public in the public sector.

The idea that everyone is so much worse off under the Tories is fantasy. Wages have been stagnating mainly because of immigration. The plus side has been a low inflation rate which has help millions with their mortgages by thousands of pounds.

It is funny how people always forget so quickly. It only seems like yesterday when most people were glad to see the back of Labour.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
pefwin Flag Where you have to have an English ... 21 Apr 17 7.51pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Oh for god sake. They were all driving around in Rolls Royce under Labour were they?

Ridiculous person.

Actually Cameron's big society was a drive to replace public services with Local Charities and volunteer work etc., to which many Charities objected as it was tantamount to fleecing them.

Everyone has long memories round here, NOT.

 


"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 21 Apr 17 7.55pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by pefwin

Actually Cameron's big society was a drive to replace public services with Local Charities and volunteer work etc., to which many Charities objected as it was tantamount to fleecing them.

Everyone has long memories round here, NOT.

You mean they actually had to do something for all the money they pay themselves?

Do you know how much of donations actually goes to the needy? Not much.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
elgrande Flag bedford 21 Apr 17 7.57pm Send a Private Message to elgrande Add elgrande as a friend

Originally posted by pefwin

Actually Cameron's big society was a drive to replace public services with Local Charities and volunteer work etc., to which many Charities objected as it was tantamount to fleecing them.

Everyone has long memories round here, NOT.

Maybe if labour hadn't increased the public sector trough by over 600,000 there might have been more wage rises.

 


always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
pefwin Flag Where you have to have an English ... 21 Apr 17 8.09pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

You mean they actually had to do something for all the money they pay themselves?

Do you know how much of donations actually goes to the needy? Not much.

It seems a lot more than you, when it comes to local charities.

It calls for someone pretty blinkered to miss the word local in a post, if you are old enough to recollect the policy was about replacing all manner of services with local volunteers.

@ elegrande, that does not make sense do you want to elaborate. If you are strictly having a go at public sector workers the problem was not the increase in wages to parity with the private sector but the failure to deal with the pension issues and similar benefits and perks across all sectors of Central Government, Local Government, Public Sector functions and the many Quangos that still exist.

That includes all those pig swilling Tory MPs benefiting from one of only two pension arrangements in the UK that is not impacted by HMRC rules.

Edited by pefwin (21 Apr 2017 8.09pm)

 


"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 53 of 450 < 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > General Election 2017