Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I would be astounded if none of those people you mention ever ran models for hypothetical scenarios during their policy planning processes, in fact until the recent outcry about it I'd assumed it was part and parcel of doing a good job in a policy-setting role.  If JM's seriously the only person to have thought of running models then he's suddenly gone to the top of my list for chancellor.

 

And I really don't understand why his decision to run that model is a bigger concern to you than a member of the sitting party discouraging investors from putting their capital into our country.

Why would they? You avoid having a run on the pound by not introducing policies that will cause a run on a pound, that's what Brown, Osborne and most other chancellors have done.

 

I actually like the fact he's admitted it, even if he he can't do anything about it anyway unless he's going to introduce capital controls which would be laughed at in 2017, but it's a sign of the total incompetence of Labour economic policy, I honestly thought at one point they were serious about all this. What was it Einstein said? Definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

Edited 13 November 2017 by MattP

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

You don't understand why it is a bigger concern that a shadow chancellor has acknowledged there is a possible situation that he needs to plan for, whereby capital flees the country because of his policy choices than John Redwood using his investment column to encourage people to invest in a globally diverse ETF, such as his dummy FT portfolio, instead of UK general share ETFs. Righto. 

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Why would they? You avoid having a run on the pound by not introducing policies that will cause a run on a pound, that's what Brown, Osborne and most other chancellors have done.

 

I actually like the fact he's admitted it, even if he he can't do anything about it anyway unless he's going to introduce capital controls which would be laughed at in 2017, but it's a sign of the total incompetence of Labour economic policy, I honestly thought at one point they were serious about all this. What was it Einstein said? Definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

You don't think chancellors consider every potential imaginable outcome of their policies before enacting them?  Well I'm sure it's true that they don't cover every blade of grass but surely any chancellor worth their salt takes the time to consider at least a couple of alternative outcomes and how they'd respond.

 

Frankly I think it's encouraging that he's not so deluded that he thinks he has the ideas that will turn the UK into the land of sunshine and unicorns.  Criticising him for considering how to deal with an adverse reaction is like criticising a firefighter for considering how best to put out a fire.  You don't want them going in blind, throwing a bucket of water at it and hoping for the best.

[Rogstanley]

2 hours ago, KingGTF said:

 

There's quite a difference between publicly stating your own policies might cause a run on the pound and advising investors to invest elsewhere because of the BoE's policy choices. 

BOE's policy choices which have been brought about after seven years of Tory government. Not even Shane Warne could generate enough spin to turn a situation where a senior Tory MP tells people to urgently get their money out of the UK into anything other than a clear indication that even the Tories themselves know their reign has been an unmitigated disaster.

 

When was the last time a serving government told people if they get don't every penny out of the UK quick they stand to lose a fortune as it's all about to hit the fan? This must be unprecedented.

Edited 13 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You don't think chancellors consider every potential imaginable outcome of their policies before enacting them?  Well I'm sure it's true that they don't cover every blade of grass but surely any chancellor worth their salt takes the time to consider at least a couple of alternative outcomes and how they'd respond.

 

Frankly I think it's encouraging that he's not so deluded that he thinks he has the ideas that will turn the UK into the land of sunshine and unicorns.  Criticising him for considering how to deal with an adverse reaction is like criticising a firefighter for considering how best to put out a fire.  You don't want them going in blind, throwing a bucket of water at it and hoping for the best.

Chancellors should consider outcomes of course but if you seriously need to consider ideas for a run on the pound its your economic policies that need considering, we are talking about a bloke here that's on record as saying he wants to break the system anyway. Making him chancellor is the political equivalent of putting King Herod in charge of your baby. He even got sacked by Ken Livingstone

 

As I've said though. He can't do anything to stop it anyway unless he introduces capital controls or raises interest rates to a very high level, neither of which are possibly so we shouldn't give it the time of day.

 

Ironically he would be going in blind but with an empty bucket.

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

BOE's policy choices which have been brought about after seven years of Tory government. Not even Shane Warne could generate enough spin to turn a situation where a senior Tory MP tells people to urgently get their money out of the UK into anything other than a clear indication that even the Tories themselves know their reign has been an unmitigated disaster.

 

When was the last time a serving government told people if they get don't every penny out of the UK quick they stand to lose a fortune as it's all about to hit the fan? This must be unprecedented.

John Redwood isn’t the government or even on the cabinet, so the government isn’t telling us to get money out.

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

BOE's policy choices which have been brought about after seven years of Tory government. Not even Shane Warne could generate enough spin to turn a situation where a senior Tory MP tells people to urgently get their money out of the UK into anything other than a clear indication that even the Tories themselves know their reign has been an unmitigated disaster.

 

When was the last time a serving government told people if they get don't every penny out of the UK quick they stand to lose a fortune as it's all about to hit the fan? This must be unprecedented.

 

No of course, every criticism he's made of the BoE is the fault of the Conservative government. In fact you're very right being as he criticises the BoE for being wedded to national capacity, and a reason for low national capacity is low unemployment. Successfully increasing employment has led to a situation where we are approaching NAIRU, those bastard Tories getting unemployment down so low they risk inflation. 

 

Given Redwood isn't part of the government, it still hasn't happened now.

[Rogstanley]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

John Redwood isn’t the government or even on the cabinet, so the government isn’t telling us to get money out.

He's a senior Tory MP so represents his party and therefore the government when he says that after seven years of Tory rule the economic situation is so dire that everybody should move their money out of the UK immediately.

 

Even attempting to compare that to labour setting out contingency plans for various potential scenarios is hilariously weak.

[Jon the Hat]

Most chancellor or shadow chancellors would have the sense to 1) Reconsider policies which risk a run on the pound as completely insane; 2) Be intelligent enough to realise they should never ever state that such an outcome is a possibility publicly.

 

Fortunately, John Redwood is never going to be either

[Strokes]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

He's a senior Tory MP so represents his party and therefore the government when he says that after seven years of Tory rule the economic situation is so dire that everybody should move their money out of the UK immediately.

 

Even attempting to compare that to labour setting out contingency plans for various potential scenarios is hilariously weak.

Don’t be ridiculous.

[Rogstanley]

7 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

No of course, every criticism he's made of the BoE is the fault of the Conservative government. In fact you're very right being as he criticises the BoE for being wedded to national capacity, and a reason for low national capacity is low unemployment. Successfully increasing employment has led to a situation where we are approaching NAIRU, those bastard Tories getting unemployment down so low they risk inflation. 

 

Given Redwood isn't part of the government, it still hasn't happened now.

 

Not enough spin Warney, sorry mate, the fact remains that we have a senior Tory MP telling people that after seven years of Tory rule the British economy is wrecked and nobody should have any money in it. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

26 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You don't think chancellors consider every potential imaginable outcome of their policies before enacting them?  Well I'm sure it's true that they don't cover every blade of grass but surely any chancellor worth their salt takes the time to consider at least a couple of alternative outcomes and how they'd respond.

 

Frankly I think it's encouraging that he's not so deluded that he thinks he has the ideas that will turn the UK into the land of sunshine and unicorns.  Criticising him for considering how to deal with an adverse reaction is like criticising a firefighter for considering how best to put out a fire.  You don't want them going in blind, throwing a bucket of water at it and hoping for the best.

 

One might prefer the firefighter not to throw a molotov into the mix in the first place.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Chancellors should consider outcomes of course but if you seriously need to consider ideas for a run on the pound its your economic policies that need considering, we are talking about a bloke here that's on record as saying he wants to break the system anyway. Making him chancellor is the political equivalent of putting King Herod in charge of your baby. He even got sacked by Ken Livingstone

 

As I've said though. He can't do anything to stop it anyway unless he introduces capital controls or raises interest rates to a very high level, neither of which are possibly so we shouldn't give it the time of day.

 

Ironically he would be going in blind but with an empty bucket.

 

Thanks for clarifying more precisely where your concerns lie, I think I have a better grasp of where you're coming from and tbh I wouldn't want to see him get the full job either, I just felt he was being attacked for the wrong reasons.

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

One might prefer the firefighter not to throw a molotov into the mix in the first place.

Indeed. Over to you, brexiters. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

 

Not enough spin Warney, sorry mate, the fact remains that we have a senior Tory MP telling people that after seven years of Tory rule the British economy is wrecked and nobody should have any money in it. 

 

The fact remains you evidently haven't read his piece, don't understand his piece, or just can't read. 

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

The fact remains you evidently haven't read his piece, don't understand his piece, or just can't read. 

You hit the middle stump there Shane.

[Rogstanley]

7 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

The fact remains you evidently haven't read his piece, don't understand his piece, or just can't read. 

Did he or did he not advise people to reduce their investment exposure to the UK?

 

Is he or is he not a senior Tory MP?

 

Have the Tories or have they not been in power for the last seven years?

 

We all know the answers. You've obviously read your a-level textbooks and that's great but when a senior Tory MP is telling people to take their money out of the country after seven years of Tory rule, you shouldn't need your teacher to tell you it doesn't reflect well on the government's performance, especially not one which continues to push the myth that they are the economically responsible choice.

Edited 13 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Buce]

57 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why would they? You avoid having a run on the pound by not introducing policies that will cause a run on a pound, that's what Brown, Osborne and most other chancellors have done.

 

I actually like the fact he's admitted it, even if he he can't do anything about it anyway unless he's going to introduce capital controls which would be laughed at in 2017, but it's a sign of the total incompetence of Labour economic policy, I honestly thought at one point they were serious about all this. What was it Einstein said? Definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

 

Lots of things but there is no record of him saying that. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Did he or did he not advise people to reduce their investment exposure to the UK?

 

Is he or is he not a senior Tory MP?

 

Have the Tories or have they not been in power for the last seven years?

 

We all know the answers. You've obviously read your a-level textbooks and that's great but when a senior Tory MP is telling people to take their money out of the country after seven years of Tory rule, you shouldn't need your teacher to tell you it doesn't reflect well on the government's performance, especially not one which continues to push the myth that they are the economically responsible choice.

 

Yes, very good, when you have no retort and no actual idea what you're on about just bang on about A level textbooks. Redwood is a bellend but he's done good here showing that people will cling to anything and use it to berate anything they want. 

 

Let's be clear, Redwood has advised people to invest in ETFs that track non-sterling assets because he is critical of BoE policy choices and, having read it back, Philip Hammond to some degree (as Matt pointed out, there aren't many Brexiteers that aren't). The immediate assumption from those critical is that Redwood is absolutely correct in advising investments outside of sterling-denominated assets but completely wrong about Brexit, not that his advice actually conflicts his Brexit views anyway(unless it's a massive lie and the BoE is a veil for Brexit disaster, would be clutching at straws a bit). Anyway, given that asset prices are known to overreact, it might well make sense to move out of sterling-denominated assets. Why? Because given that current real exchange rates are negatively correlated with future nominal changes, thus meaning the current low value of the sterling signals that sterling will rise. The current weakness of sterling is part of the reason that the FTSE, and other sterling-denominated assets, are currently hovering around record highs consistently. So if sterling is to rise - it is an if but a Brexiteer would be confident of that/markets might already be pricing in a worse case scenario -  and asset prices have likely overshot their real value, then it makes absolute sense to be reducing your exposure to sterling-denominated assets. Now add into the mix the BoE's tightening of monetary policy (especially compared to the ECB and BoJ), the angle Redwood uses for his argument, and you might see further reason for sterling to rise. If it also starts to wind-back QE, given its inflationary effect on asset prices it makes absolute sense to advise getting out of sterling-denominated assets. Redwood's own arguments rests on central banks elsewhere being kinder to growth by keeping monetary policy loose and not responding to inflationary pressures from oil price increases (which has driven UK inflation too). The BoE's fascination with the old model of national capacity which completely ignores our current ability to import unemployment and low wages from abroad, which in fact means national capacity is less important than global capacity, something Carney bizarrely admitted himself but the MPC he leads ignored. Unnecessary tightening from the BoE will cost the UK growth as consumers are squeezed so invest outside of UK companies.

 

Now what any of this has to do with Conservative policy over the last 7 years, I'm not entirely sure and I'm confident, given the basic nature of your questions to come to the conclusion, that you have no idea either. I can about accept people using it to batter Brexit and its supporters a bit more, and I'm sure Redwood finds it flattering that they assume him to have some special wisdom about its outcomes which he doesn't have when he forecasts its success. In fact, I'm sure he's delighted anyone still takes notice of him. In reality, it's a political swipe at his enemies and definitely a lobbying piece for the BoE. Just as the Forbes article used Redwood to swipe at Brexit some 10 days later.

If you disagree with his criticism of the BoE then that's a different matter, same with if he's being disingenuous about the causes of the economic damage or maybe he's using the BoE as a veil for his expectation for Brexit disaster. You can certainly question his argument given the Fed's tightening (tho the White House is more keen to encourage lending than the Treasury atm) and you could also say exchange rate recovery could offset any gains made by tracking foreign shares. 

 

Anyway, I'll remove my intermediate macro and finance textbooks from my mind and instead blame 7 years of tory rule for some old bloke writing a political swipe to try to feel relevant. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

McDonnell making some sensible plans

 

Labour vows to factor climate change risk into economic forecasts

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/13/labour-vows-to-factor-climate-change-risk-into-economic-forecasts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Strokes]

13 hours ago, MattP said:

That nutter from Kensington is in the news again, looks like another one who wasn't vetted properly. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/13/labour-mp-described-black-tory-candidate-token-ghetto-boy/

The racist party strikes again.

[Rogstanley]

7 hours ago, KingGTF said:

 

Yes, very good, when you have no retort and no actual idea what you're on about just bang on about A level textbooks. Redwood is a bellend but he's done good here showing that people will cling to anything and use it to berate anything they want. 

 

Let's be clear, Redwood has advised people to invest in ETFs that track non-sterling assets because he is critical of BoE policy choices and, having read it back, Philip Hammond to some degree (as Matt pointed out, there aren't many Brexiteers that aren't). The immediate assumption from those critical is that Redwood is absolutely correct in advising investments outside of sterling-denominated assets but completely wrong about Brexit, not that his advice actually conflicts his Brexit views anyway(unless it's a massive lie and the BoE is a veil for Brexit disaster, would be clutching at straws a bit). Anyway, given that asset prices are known to overreact, it might well make sense to move out of sterling-denominated assets. Why? Because given that current real exchange rates are negatively correlated with future nominal changes, thus meaning the current low value of the sterling signals that sterling will rise. The current weakness of sterling is part of the reason that the FTSE, and other sterling-denominated assets, are currently hovering around record highs consistently. So if sterling is to rise - it is an if but a Brexiteer would be confident of that/markets might already be pricing in a worse case scenario -  and asset prices have likely overshot their real value, then it makes absolute sense to be reducing your exposure to sterling-denominated assets. Now add into the mix the BoE's tightening of monetary policy (especially compared to the ECB and BoJ), the angle Redwood uses for his argument, and you might see further reason for sterling to rise. If it also starts to wind-back QE, given its inflationary effect on asset prices it makes absolute sense to advise getting out of sterling-denominated assets. Redwood's own arguments rests on central banks elsewhere being kinder to growth by keeping monetary policy loose and not responding to inflationary pressures from oil price increases (which has driven UK inflation too). The BoE's fascination with the old model of national capacity which completely ignores our current ability to import unemployment and low wages from abroad, which in fact means national capacity is less important than global capacity, something Carney bizarrely admitted himself but the MPC he leads ignored. Unnecessary tightening from the BoE will cost the UK growth as consumers are squeezed so invest outside of UK companies.

 

Now what any of this has to do with Conservative policy over the last 7 years, I'm not entirely sure and I'm confident, given the basic nature of your questions to come to the conclusion, that you have no idea either. I can about accept people using it to batter Brexit and its supporters a bit more, and I'm sure Redwood finds it flattering that they assume him to have some special wisdom about its outcomes which he doesn't have when he forecasts its success. In fact, I'm sure he's delighted anyone still takes notice of him. In reality, it's a political swipe at his enemies and definitely a lobbying piece for the BoE. Just as the Forbes article used Redwood to swipe at Brexit some 10 days later.

If you disagree with his criticism of the BoE then that's a different matter, same with if he's being disingenuous about the causes of the economic damage or maybe he's using the BoE as a veil for his expectation for Brexit disaster. You can certainly question his argument given the Fed's tightening (tho the White House is more keen to encourage lending than the Treasury atm) and you could also say exchange rate recovery could offset any gains made by tracking foreign shares. 

 

Anyway, I'll remove my intermediate macro and finance textbooks from my mind and instead blame 7 years of tory rule for some old bloke writing a political swipe to try to feel relevant. 

 

 

 

This is all great, not entirely sure your interpretation of his comments is correct but that’s not especially important.

 

Seems you lot have two choices:

 

1) admit that a senior Tory mp urging people to get their money out of the uk reflects very badly on the Tories after seven years in power.

 

2) Admit that actually, government policy has less impact on the economy than most believe; that the idea of the Tories being economically competent is therefore a sham; and that the concept of “taking back control” in the context of brexit is also a sham given that even the BOE is totally unelectable.

Edited 14 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Rogstanley]

4 hours ago, toddybad said:

McDonnell making some sensible plans

 

Labour vows to factor climate change risk into economic forecasts

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/13/labour-vows-to-factor-climate-change-risk-into-economic-forecasts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

McDONNELL ADMITS LABOUR ECONOMC POLICY WILL CAUSE “MASSIVE FLOODS” AS IMMIGRANTS PLOT TO STEAL YOUR DOG

Edited 14 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[David Guiza]

46 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The racist party strikes again.

Without meaning to get into a 'but have you seen this' debacle; I did see the Tories in the same area sent out a leaflet to rate how much the Grenfel Tower disaster bothered them between 1-10. 

 

It's an omnishambles. 

[Strokes]

53 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Without meaning to get into a 'but have you seen this' debacle; I did see the Tories in the same area sent out a leaflet to rate how much the Grenfel Tower disaster bothered them between 1-10. 

 

It's an omnishambles. 

You won’t get me arguing against you on this, the conservatives have handled grenfell appallingly, particularly at local level. Have you got a copy of the leaflet for us to examine?

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

This is all great, not entirely sure your interpretation of his comments is correct but that’s not especially important.

 

Seems you lot have two choices:

 

1) admit that a senior Tory mp urging people to get their money out of the uk reflects very badly on the Tories after seven years in power.

 

2) Admit that actually, government policy has less impact on the economy than most believe; that the idea of the Tories being economically competent is therefore a sham; and that the concept of “taking back control” in the context of brexit is also a sham given that even the BOE is totally unelectable.

Or that a rogue Tory MP was acting in his own interests, instead of his party and country. Further evidence that TM needs to go.