Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Actually pretty confident of the Tories winning the next election now if they can still lead in some polls with May as leader.

 

Labour should be a minimum of 10 points clear, people might be finally seeing through this mob in opposition.

 

Polls mean nothing atm. We're potentially 4.5 years from an election. In the meantime there's Brexit, cost of living causing problems even before Brexit, personal debt causing concern to the economy (again), universal credit will make headlines once roll out decimates the lives of more and more people (5 weeks before payment is horrendous). There are a lot of issues for the tories to negotiate their way past. Anything could happen.

[Fox Ulike]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

Fears grow across the Atlantic over Brexit fallout:

 

Nearly all the possible trading relationships between Britain and the European Union following Brexit would be less favourable than staying in the European Union, according to an influential US think tank.

The Rand Corporation study said the worst option would be a "no deal".

That would leave the UK economy 4.9% poorer by 2029.

"No deal" would also have a negative effect on the EU economy, but it would be "relatively minor".

The report said that even a "soft Brexit" involving staying in the free market would not be as positive economically as staying in the EU.

 

Rand plays a significant role in America, with half of its funding coming from the US government.

In Europe it has advised the UK government on policy issues such as mental health, as well as the European Parliament and the European Commission.

• Did 'soft Brexit' just win?
• Failure to plan for post-Brexit borders 'reckless'
• UK warned on cost of 'hard Brexit'

Its report argues that Brexit was likely to have a "mostly negative effect" on American interests in Europe, given the UK is a firm ally of the US in security matters and a supporter of free markets.

"An EU without the UK may be more willing to create barriers for non-EU companies, to the detriment of US companies and the American economy," the report says.

"In the development of EU defence policy, for example, the UK aim was often to ensure that EU measures did not undermine NATO and the strong transatlantic partnership."

That approach could change once Britain has left the EU.

'How much worse-off'

The Rand report said that there was only one option that would leave the UK better off outside the European Union: a comprehensive three-way free trade deal between Britain, the US and the EU.

But the report admits that is an extremely unlikely scenario, given that the present trade negotiations between the US and the EU (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) are not supported by President Donald Trump and are "in a hiatus".

"The analysis clearly shows that the UK will be economically worse-off outside of the EU under most trade scenarios - the key question for the UK is how much worse-off," said Charles Ries, a vice-president at Rand and the report's lead author.

"It is in the best interests of the UK, and to a lesser extent the EU, to achieve some sort of open trading and investment relationship post-Brexit."

Mr Ries is former US ambassador to Greece and was also principal deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs in the US between 2000 and 2004.

Image copyright Getty Images

Although the report says that a loss of growth caused by leaving the EU could in part be compensated for by free trade deals with other countries such as India and China, they would be difficult to execute.

"Since the EU has a political incentive to demonstrate that the UK is worse off as a result of leaving the EU (so as to discourage other departures), and some in the UK believe the costs of 'no deal' are low, there is a real risk that the parties - even while seeking to cooperate - will find themselves struggling to reach any agreement," the report says.

"Unfortunately for the UK, 'no deal' - or, indeed, any of the 'hard Brexit' scenarios - is the worst situation for the future, with significant losses in terms of economic growth."

The report says that many American companies invest in the UK because it offers open access to the EU.

It argues that foreign direct investment (FDI) has been boosted by 28% because of the UK's membership of the EU.

'Fault lines'

"Our research indicates that a fall back to World Trade Organisation rules would reduce EU FDI inflow into the UK by about $7.8bn (£5.8bn).

"If the UK signs a comprehensive FTA [free trade agreement] with the EU, investment from the EU would fall by $3.4bn - a reduction of about 9% from EU membership investment levels.

"Signing an FTA with the United States would add about $3.2bn in FDI inflows for the UK from our baseline scenario, making up about one-third of investment lost due to termination of EU membership. The best option would be to conclude a three-way UK-EU-US trade agreement."

Rand says that once free trade negotiations start, "several fault lines" could emerge among the remaining 27 members of the EU, which may put the UK in a stronger position.

"These include the diverging interests of the countries that use the euro currency and those that do not, as well as the diverging interests of those countries that are net contributors to the EU budget and those that are net recipients," the report says.

"Interests could also diverge on regional bases. Northern European countries may seek the maximum possible free movement of goods while trying to lure the financial industry from London to their countries.

"Southern European countries may focus on securing a high financial settlement from the UK and preserving agricultural and fisheries policies.

"And eastern European countries may seek strong protections for their citizens currently in the UK. These differing priorities may come into play as trade-offs are made."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42315280

 

Interesting reading. Nice to read something independent that gives some statistics to the economic impact on Brexit.

 

“The UK economy 4.9% poorer by 2029.”

 

That’s probably better than we could have expected.

 

Noticable that it’s not even headline news on the BBC any more. Even the Brexiteers can no longer be bothered to challenge it; and the Remainers can’t be bothered to be outraged by it.

 

Significant Economic downturn has been normalised. We’ve all just accepted it. How odd.

 

[Fox Ulike]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Whenever the election happens (unlikely to be any time soon), the state of play with the economy and Brexit will surely have a massive impact.

 

Fieldwork for this YouGov poll was done Sun/Mon after May's negotiations "triumph", I believe - so at a high point for the Tories.

In contrast, though most polls were pretty static, a week earlier Survation had Labour 8 points ahead: http://survation.com/labour-extends-polling-lead-8-points-conservatives/

 

Labour definitely should be polling higher, though, given economic expectations and the impact of austerity. 

I'm not sure people are "seeing through" Labour, more that Labour are not seizing the agenda, which continues to be all about "Tories, success or failure?".

That's partly understandable, as Labour don't want to draw attention to the fact that they're almost as divided as the Tories over Brexit.....but they're not seizing the agenda over austerity/living standards/public services either.

This was my biggest complaint about Corbyn a year ago - less the odd bonkers policy, more the failure to seize the agenda and establish themselves as a viable alternative among swing voters.

 

If things stay as they appear now - decent Brexit compromise deal apparently achievable, economy/living standards/public services bad but not disastrous for majority - then the Tories might well win again.

The trouble for the Tories is that things staying as they appear now is probably beyond expectations.

More likely, Brexit Phase II will prove painfully difficult or might collapse completely or might require compromises that split the Tory party, there will be at least some further economic decline (possibly moderate, possibly massive) & public services will get worse. In that context (which I really don't think is Project Fear), all bets are off. 

 

Interesting post.

 

I think you underestimate the extent to which the media is controlled by people who want the Conservatives to succeed.

 

I’ve no idea how much truth is in this article, but I thought it was interesting:

 

http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/how-britains-propaganda-machine-controls-what-you-think/

 

In terms of Britain’s media, the reality is that there are 5 billionaires who run our media, and they have huge power in our democracy forcing our political parties to prioritize their wishes over the wishes of the British public. These 5 people not only own 80% of the newspapers we read every day, they also own TV stations, press agencies, book companies, cinemas, so everything we think or speak about in Britain is nearly controlled entirely by these 5 men.

These are the men in control : Rupert Murdoch, Jonathon Harmsworth, Richard Desmond and the Barclay’s Twins. None of these people live in Britain.

 

Maybe the reason Labour haven’t seized the agenda, and aren't trying to appeal to swing voters, is that every time they do the media rips them apart?

 

So is it that Labour’s only alternative is to try and engage the radical Left? The centre ground is effectively closed-off to them.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Interesting post.

 

I think you underestimate the extent to which the media is controlled by people who want the Conservatives to succeed.

 

I’ve no idea how much truth is in this article, but I thought it was interesting:

 

http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/how-britains-propaganda-machine-controls-what-you-think/

 

In terms of Britain’s media, the reality is that there are 5 billionaires who run our media, and they have huge power in our democracy forcing our political parties to prioritize their wishes over the wishes of the British public. These 5 people not only own 80% of the newspapers we read every day, they also own TV stations, press agencies, book companies, cinemas, so everything we think or speak about in Britain is nearly controlled entirely by these 5 men.

These are the men in control : Rupert Murdoch, Jonathon Harmsworth, Richard Desmond and the Barclay’s Twins. None of these people live in Britain.

 

Maybe the reason Labour haven’t seized the agenda, and aren't trying to appeal to swing voters, is that every time they do the media rips them apart?

 

So is it that Labour’s only alternative is to try and engage the radical Left? The centre ground is effectively closed-off to them.

Even though he was essentially Tory-lite, Blair carried three elections in style with the help of the media.

 

I'm not saying that they don't have undue influence (of course they do), but they pick the team most likely to serve their interests - whether Tory or Labour.

[Fox Ulike]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Even though he was essentially Tory-lite, Blair carried three elections in style with the help of the media.

 

I'm not saying that they don't have undue influence (of course they do), but they pick the team most likely to serve their interests - whether Tory or Labour.

I would say that 5 people owning 80% of our newspapers as more than "undue influence"!!

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I would say that 5 people owning 80% of our newspapers as more than "undue influence"!!

Again, I wholeheartedly agree, but I'm not buying that they only back the Conservative party for the reasons given above.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Interesting post.

 

I think you underestimate the extent to which the media is controlled by people who want the Conservatives to succeed.

  

Maybe the reason Labour haven’t seized the agenda, and aren't trying to appeal to swing voters, is that every time they do the media rips them apart?

 

So is it that Labour’s only alternative is to try and engage the radical Left? The centre ground is effectively closed-off to them.

 

What you say about the print media is undoubtedly true, but how important is the print media today?

Newspaper circulation figures have shrunk big-time. They still have some influence on debate and opinion, but nowhere near as much as they used to.

 

TV news is probably heading the same way, with a shrinking, aging audience. Online news and social media is becoming much more important in setting the agenda.

 

Despite grumbles, TV news is comparatively even-handed. During the election, Labour made good use of broadcast news, particularly local news coverage, to successfully boost its cause.

Labour (and Momentum, more specifically) has also been more effective than the Tories at using social media to promote messages - both in promoting Corbyn initially and then during the election.

Yet I've not seen any serious Labour attempts to set the post-election agenda via TV news, online news or social media.

BBC, Channel 4, Facebook and Twitter aren't slanted against Labour, Labour are just not setting the agenda enough.

 

If Labour gives up on swing voters and the centre ground, relying only on the radical Left, it will struggle to ever gain power - in which case, they might as well all give up and take up origami instead.

What's the point of politics without power? It's like buying the world's best footballers but being unable to register them - a team full of Silvas, if you like!

 

One exception to that: Labour could get in without setting any agenda if the Tories make an even bigger mess of things than they already are - purely as an anti-Tory backlash - but would then face a backlash themselves as soon as anything controversial happened as they would have no depth of support beyond their own activists.

 

[Fox Ulike]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Again, I wholeheartedly agree, but I'm not buying that they only back the Conservative party for the reasons given above.

I'm not selling it mate.

 

But OK. Let's pick those nits and split those hairs.

 

I was responding to Alf Bentley's post about Labour's current reluctance to swing to the centre ground. So. I had assumed that the context of this would mean that something that happened 20 years ago wouldn't therefore become a significant part of the debate, and that I wouldn't have to provide a comprehensive index of footnotes clarifying each comment I made. If I said that Riyad Mahrez would walk into any City side of the last 20 years, I hope you wouldn't come back at me and point out that 20 years ago he was 6 years old; and so probably not likely to depose Steve Guppy of the left-wing position as a six-year-old child.

 

But OK. Your point that things were different 20 years ago is formally acknowledged.  It doesn't really alter my point about the media controlling who governs though does it? In fact, it strengthens it. So I'm really unsure as to why we are having this conversation.

 

 

Edited 12 December 2017 by Fox Ulike

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Interesting reading. Nice to read something independent that gives some statistics to the economic impact on Brexit.

 

“The UK economy 4.9% poorer by 2029.”

 

That’s probably better than we could have expected.

 

Noticable that it’s not even headline news on the BBC any more. Even the Brexiteers can no longer be bothered to challenge it; and the Remainers can’t be bothered to be outraged by it.

 

Significant Economic downturn has been normalised. We’ve all just accepted it. How odd.

 

That's around 5% of around £2 trillion (by then)?

That's £100 billion annually. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I'm not selling it mate.

 

But OK. Let's pick those nits and split those hairs.

 

I was responding to Alf Bentley's post about Labour's current reluctance to swing to the centre ground. So. I had assumed that the context of this would mean that something that happened 20 years ago wouldn't therefore become a significant part of the debate, and that I wouldn't have to provide an index of footnotes clarifying each comment I made. If I said that Riyad Mahrez would walk into any City side of the last 20 years, I hope you wouldn't come back at me and point out that 20 years ago he was 6 years old; and so probably not

 

But OK. Your point that things were different 20 years ago is formally acknowledged.  It doesn't really alter my point about the media controlling who governs though does it? In fact, it strengthens it. So I'm really unsure as to why we are having this conversation.

 

 

I apologise; people on here that know me also know I can be a shameless pedant at times

 

I do think we're broadly in agreement regarding this topic in any case, and yeah; Corbyn scares the old media guard because he's not willing to go to that centre ground, so they're going to have a go at him every opportunity they get. As always, Alf makes some good points in his post above.

[Fox Ulike]

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

What you say about the print media is undoubtedly true, but how important is the print media today?

Newspaper circulation figures have shrunk big-time. They still have some influence on debate and opinion, but nowhere near as much as they used to.

 

TV news is probably heading the same way, with a shrinking, aging audience. Online news and social media is becoming much more important in setting the agenda.

 

Despite grumbles, TV news is comparatively even-handed. During the election, Labour made good use of broadcast news, particularly local news coverage, to successfully boost its cause.

Labour (and Momentum, more specifically) has also been more effective than the Tories at using social media to promote messages - both in promoting Corbyn initially and then during the election.

Yet I've not seen any serious Labour attempts to set the post-election agenda via TV news, online news or social media.

BBC, Channel 4, Facebook and Twitter aren't slanted against Labour, Labour are just not setting the agenda enough.

 

If Labour gives up on swing voters and the centre ground, relying only on the radical Left, it will struggle to ever gain power - in which case, they might as well all give up and take up origami instead.

What's the point of politics without power? It's like buying the world's best footballers but being unable to register them - a team full of Silvas, if you like!

 

One exception to that: Labour could get in without setting any agenda if the Tories make an even bigger mess of things than they already are - purely as an anti-Tory backlash - but would then face a backlash themselves as soon as anything controversial happened as they would have no depth of support beyond their own activists.

 

 

Most print media nowadays has a corresponding online presence though. So I would argue that their influence is almost as big as it was in the past.

 

Social media doesn’t set the agenda. The nature of Facebook and Twitter means that these media outlets are slanted to what every you already believe (echo chambers/confirmation bias). And how many people actually watch the Channel 4 news?

 

That really only leaves the BBC, which, OK yes, is fairly even handed.

 

So I think that people still rely on the traditional media brands (Guardian/Daily Mail/Sun etc) in order to form their opinions.

 

And how many of them are even-handed?  The Daily mail and Sun are read by 20 times more people than read the Guardian (and the same probably goes for the respective online presences).

 

So… no! I’m not convinced by your argument! Labour still have little opportunity to seize the agenda with the media so heavily stacked against them (in 2017, not 1997 LeicsMac). Hence their only real option might be to appeal to the radical Left?

[Buce]

 

15:13

German minister suggests May not being open with voters about UK paying 'Brexit bill' before trade deal finalised

A German minister has accused Theresa May of not being open with British voters about the fact that the UK will have to pay a “Brexit bill” to the EU before a trade deal is finalised. According to a Spiegel Online report, Michael Roth, the German Europe minister, made the comment at an EU meeting in Brussels.

The Spiegel report is in German, but here is a Google Translate translation of the start of the story, with minor tidying up from me.

The German government has called on Britain’s prime minister Theresa May to properly report on the results of the previous Brexit negotiations in her homeland. “You have to play and speak the same way as you do in London,” said Michael Roth (SPD) on the sidelines of an EU ministerial meeting in Brussels. He was “somewhat surprised” that what the British government said in Brussels was “a little different” to what was said in London.

Roth hinted that May had given the impression that Britain only had to pay the Brexit final bill to the EU if there was a deal on a trade agreement.

From an EU point of view, however, this does not correspond to the deal that May received at the end of last week in Brussels. It stipulates that the agreements on the final invoice will result in a legally binding withdrawal agreement which is independent of the trade agreement desired by the United Kingdom.

Many Tories insist that the UK should only pay its “Brexit bill”, costing £35bn to £39bn according to May yesterday, only if it gets a free trade deal.

Yesterday May (here) and Davis Davis (here) both insisted that payments were conditional on the UK getting a Brexit deal. But they have not always been 100% clear about which deal they are talking about because there will be at least two deals.

There will be a withdrawal agreement, potentially agreed in the autumn. And at some point after Brexit the UK and the EU may sign a proper trade deal. The UK-EU deal agreed last week tied the “Brexit bill” payments to the withdrawal agreement, not the trade deal further down the line.

But, as May told MPs yesterday, the withdrawal agreement is meant to take into account “the framework for the future relationship”. So it should contain a broad commitment to a trade deal of some kind, although almost certainly not the details. In draft guidelines the European council says the bit covering trade will be a “political declaration” - which is quite different from a 2,000-page trade document. That is what the UK will be getting for its £39bn.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/dec/12/almost-all-potential-brexit-outcomes-will-leave-uk-worse-off-says-us-thinktank-politics-live

[Fox Ulike]

33 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That's around 5% of around £2 trillion (by then)?

That's £100 billion annually. 

 

It’s crazy isn’t it.

 

I think sometimes you have to stop, take a step back and remind yourself what we are doing.

 

So here goes:

 

We are voluntarily leaving a club that provides the UK with crucial services. It’s costing us £40billion to do this. We estimate that leaving this club will cost us £100billion every year for the next twelve years.  And that’s not all. We still don’t know how we are going to replace those crucial services, or how much it's going to cost us to do so.

 

And this isn’t even headline news. The World has gone bonkers.

Edited 12 December 2017 by Fox Ulike

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Interesting reading. Nice to read something independent that gives some statistics to the economic impact on Brexit.

 

“The UK economy 4.9% poorer by 2029.”

 

That’s probably better than we could have expected.

 

Noticable that it’s not even headline news on the BBC any more. Even the Brexiteers can no longer be bothered to challenge it; and the Remainers can’t be bothered to be outraged by it.

 

Significant Economic downturn has been normalised. We’ve all just accepted it. How odd.

 

What's the point? It's only guesswork. Might be right might be wrong. There have been enough wrong guesses by experts in the last two years that means we don't have to take them so seriously.

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Most print media nowadays has a corresponding online presence though. So I would argue that their influence is almost as big as it was in the past.

 

Social media doesn’t set the agenda. The nature of Facebook and Twitter means that these media outlets are slanted to what every you already believe (echo chambers/confirmation bias). And how many people actually watch the Channel 4 news?

 

That really only leaves the BBC, which, OK yes, is fairly even handed.

 

So I think that people still rely on the traditional media brands (Guardian/Daily Mail/Sun etc) in order to form their opinions.

 

And how many of them are even-handed?  The Daily mail and Sun are read by 20 times more people than read the Guardian (and the same probably goes for the respective online presences).

 

So… no! I’m not convinced by your argument! Labour still have little opportunity to seize the agenda with the media so heavily stacked against them (in 2017, not 1997 LeicsMac). Hence their only real option might be to appeal to the radical Left?

 

Fair point about print media having their own web sites. Would be interesting to see reliable data as to how many people visit news reports/analysis on the web sites of the different papers.

I suspect The Guardian attracts proportionally more readers online than in print - at least compared to its broadsheet rivals, as The Times and Telegraph have pay walls.

I also wonder how many people bother to look at news online via The Sun web site - fair number via the Mail, though, I imagine.

 

There's some truth in your second point about Facebook/Twitter being echo chambers, but it's only partly true. People tend to have more Facebook friends who share their views or follow Twitter accounts they agree with, but they sign up with all sorts for various reasons. I have Facebook friends who post Corbynista stuff and others who post Britain First memes - and I'm neither a Corbynista nor on the Far Right. How many of Lineker's 6.8m Twitter followers are lefties? Yet he often tweets leftie/liberal sentiments, doesn't he? I presume a lot of his followers are there purely because of football, yet might be influenced by him.

 

More significantly, during the election - when media exposure was at its greatest - Labour massively improved their poll ratings.....so the Tory media didn't succeed in ripping them apart then.

Admittedly, some of that was due to an unprecedentedly poor Tory campaign, but some of it was Labour using the media well....which they aren't now.

 

In particular, I think Labour needs to be actively promoting its "borrow to spend on investment" policy. Many swing voters won't be convinced, but they only need to win over a minority to potentially build an election-winning coalition.

In contrast, if the issue is completely new to almost everyone at the next election, they'll be vulnerable to the inevitable Tory response of "reckless Labour wrecking the economy".

What could be an election-winning policy in an election where living standards and public services are bound to be big issues could instead become a massive vote loser.... 

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Fair point about print media having their own web sites. Would be interesting to see reliable data as to how many people visit news reports/analysis on the web sites of the different papers.

I suspect The Guardian attracts proportionally more readers online than in print - at least compared to its broadsheet rivals, as The Times and Telegraph have pay walls.

I also wonder how many people bother to look at news online via The Sun web site - fair number via the Mail, though, I imagine.

 

There's some truth in your second point about Facebook/Twitter being echo chambers, but it's only partly true. People tend to have more Facebook friends who share their views or follow Twitter accounts they agree with, but they sign up with all sorts for various reasons. I have Facebook friends who post Corbynista stuff and others who post Britain First memes - and I'm neither a Corbynista nor on the Far Right. How many of Lineker's 6.8m Twitter followers are lefties? Yet he often tweets leftie/liberal sentiments, doesn't he? I presume a lot of his followers are there purely because of football, yet might be influenced by him.

 

More significantly, during the election - when media exposure was at its greatest - Labour massively improved their poll ratings.....so the Tory media didn't succeed in ripping them apart then.

Admittedly, some of that was due to an unprecedentedly poor Tory campaign, but some of it was Labour using the media well....which they aren't now.

 

In particular, I think Labour needs to be actively promoting its "borrow to spend on investment" policy. Many swing voters won't be convinced, but they only need to win over a minority to potentially build an election-winning coalition.

In contrast, if the issue is completely new to almost everyone at the next election, they'll be vulnerable to the inevitable Tory response of "reckless Labour wrecking the economy".

What could be an election-winning policy in an election where living standards and public services are bound to be big issues could instead become a massive vote loser.... 

I think the key thing, which they are failing to do, is that labour needs to EXPLAIN what government debt actually is, how positive investments affect an economy and why their choices of investments are the right ones. 

 

Although Osborne was economically illiterate, his message about debt was powerful, even if wrong. You only have to read the writers here to see how entrenched views on government debt have become only a few years after osborne began spewing crap. I don't think McDonnell, in particular, is doing enough to help the British public understand why labour is making the arguments it is and so it remains their weakness.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think the key thing, which they are failing to do, is that labour needs to EXPLAIN what government debt actually is, how positive investments affect an economy and why their choices of investments are the right ones. 

 

Although Osborne was economically illiterate, his message about debt was powerful, even if wrong. You only have to read the writers here to see how entrenched views on government debt have become only a few years after osborne began spewing crap. I don't think McDonnell, in particular, is doing enough to help the British public understand why labour is making the arguments it is and so it remains their weakness.

Good luck explaining it is all I'll say. 

 

When a country pays more on debt interest that it does on its police force and defence combined it's tough argument to win to want to borrow even more (plus you have no idea what gilts will be at if it looks like Labour will win) - if you carry on down the McDonnell route of having no figures and just shouting "it'll pay for itself" you'll sound like a dodgy double glazing salesman.

   

If you can pull it off fair play.

[Strokes]

4 hours ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Interesting reading. Nice to read something independent that gives some statistics to the economic impact on Brexit.

 

“The UK economy 4.9% poorer by 2029.”

 

That’s probably better than we could have expected.

 

Noticable that it’s not even headline news on the BBC any more. Even the Brexiteers can no longer be bothered to challenge it; and the Remainers can’t be bothered to be outraged by it.

 

Significant Economic downturn has been normalised. We’ve all just accepted it. How odd.

 

I can remember similar predictions being made about joining the euro and that we would be left behind whilst the rest of Europe prospered. The fact is, even the experts can’t predict the future, it’s just an educated guess.

[Guest Kopfkino]

 

I think the key thing, which they are failing to do, is that labour needs to EXPLAIN what government debt actually is

 

Yeah lets explain to students its their future tax payments redistributed to rich individuals and institutional investors. 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

Good luck explaining it is all I'll say. 

 

When a country pays more on debt interest that it does on its police force and defence combined it's tough argument to win to want to borrow even more (plus you have no idea what gilts will be at if it looks like Labour will win) - if you carry on down the McDonnell route of having no figures and just shouting "it'll pay for itself" you'll sound like a dodgy double glazing salesman.

   

If you can pull it off fair play.

Yes my point is it needs explaining better.

But it's still absolutely the right thing to do.

[Lionator]

As a Corbyn 'supporter' I've become a bit disillusioned with his stance on Brexit. For all intents and purposes, he should be against it and really sabre-rattling for the removal of David Davis from his position but he's not and that and that is probably due to possible ulterior motives. He's done his job, he's got people talking about the social injustices which are taking place in this country, we now need a sharper, more polished politician to move the party forward into the next election, even if that means moving a bit closer to the centre.

 

Won't happen though.

Edited 12 December 2017 by Lionator

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

What's the point? It's only guesswork. Might be right might be wrong. There have been enough wrong guesses by experts in the last two years that means we don't have to take them so seriously.

You say it's only guesswork but there's nothing coming the other way to counter it with a different guess is there?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

As a Corbyn 'supporter' I've become a bit disillusioned with his stance on Brexit. For all intents and purposes, he should be against it and really sabre-rattling for the removal of David Davis from his position but he's not and that and that is probably due to possible ulterior motives. He's done his job, he's got people talking about the social injustices which are taking place in this country, we now need a sharper, more polished politician to move the party forward into the next election, even if that means moving a bit closer to the centre.

 

Won't happen though.

I'm limbering up as you type

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

As a Corbyn 'supporter' I've become a bit disillusioned with his stance on Brexit. For all intents and purposes, he should be against it and really sabre-rattling for the removal of David Davis from his position but he's not and that and that is probably due to possible ulterior motives.

I don't really get how you can be disillusioned with him? Corbyn campaigned against the common market and voted against the Maastrict and Lisbon treaties? He's a principled Eurosceptic who was bullied into a half hearted campaign to remain by his party.

  

He's a hard Brexiteer, just for very different reasons. 

[ealingfox]

Yep, one thing that we can all be very clear on is that when he went into the polling booth last year he put his cross next to Leave, no doubt about it. It's to his credit in some ways I guess that he wasn't truly swayed by the immense weight of circumstances.

 

Interesting really, how each point in time is such a rich tapestry. One of the many strands which led to the Leave vote on the day.