Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

That's why the article focused on the immediate aftermath of the vote, rather than Brexit. Everything they predicted so far has turned out to be total nonsense based on fantasy figures the treasury deliberately set out to get.

 

Cameron and Osborne just expected we would never find out as they thought they could scare us all into voting to stay.

What do you mean by "everything they predicted"? Who is they? What did they predict?

 

My recollection is that there were warnings of negative economic consequences which could manifest themselves in various ways.

 

What actually happened was a collapse in the pound that was unprecedented in its severity outside of major economic disasters and a consequent year of falling wages. You might brush that off and pretend it's nothing, but that would be simply untrue. Clearly those effects are the negative consequences predicted, so actually the predictions were correct.

 

What we are seeing now is an increase in the value of the pound, still well below average levels over the last decade, but an increase which is based on the hope that soft brexit will prevail. The minute hard crash brexit comes back on the agenda, you watch it plummet again.

[Kopfkino]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

What do you mean by "everything they predicted"? Who is they? What did they predict?

 

My recollection is that there were warnings of negative economic consequences which could manifest themselves in various ways.

 

What actually happened was a collapse in the pound that was unprecedented in its severity outside of major economic disasters and a consequent year of falling wages. You might brush that off and pretend it's nothing, but that would be simply untrue. Clearly those effects are the negative consequences predicted, so actually the predictions were correct.

 

What we are seeing now is an increase in the value of the pound, still well below average levels over the last decade, but an increase which is based on the hope that soft brexit will prevail. The minute hard crash brexit comes back on the agenda, you watch it plummet again.

 

 what about this bit?

 

“The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain”.

 

“The analysis also presents a downside scenario, finding that the shock could be much more profound, meaning the effect on the economy would be worse still. The rise in uncertainty could be amplified, the volatility in financial markets more tumultuous, and the extent of the impact to living standards more acute. In this severe scenario, GDP would be 6% smaller, there would be a deeper recession, and the number of people made unemployed would rise by around 800,000 compared with a vote to remain. The hit to wages, inflation, house prices and borrowing would be larger. There is a credible risk that this more acute scenario could materialise”.

Edited 25 January 2018 by Kopfkino

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 

“The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain”.

 

“The analysis also presents a downside scenario, finding that the shock could be much more profound, meaning the effect on the economy would be worse still. The rise in uncertainty could be amplified, the volatility in financial markets more tumultuous, and the extent of the impact to living standards more acute. In this severe scenario, GDP would be 6% smaller, there would be a deeper recession, and the number of people made unemployed would rise by around 800,000 compared with a vote to remain. The hit to wages, inflation, house prices and borrowing would be larger. There is a credible risk that this more acute scenario could materialise”.

There were all sorts of predictions from all sorts of people. What I'm saying is the theme of the predictions were negative economic consequences manifesting themselves in some way, and that's exactly what happened.

 

We can all find examples of either side making specific predictions that were incorrect, but looking at the general themes I think it's clear at this point that the remain arguments have turned out to be more accurate. I mean, nothing that brexiters said would happen has happened. At least remainers were largely correct even if not on the specifics.

Edited 25 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

And your debts like your mortgage will cost more.

An irrelevance while on a fixed rate and if things carry on as they are, shouldn't be all that long til it's paid off altogether. 

[Kopfkino]

7 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

There were all sorts of predictions from all sorts of people. What I'm saying is the theme of the predictions were negative economic consequences manifesting themselves in some way, and that's exactly what happened.

 

We can all find examples of either side making specific predictions that were incorrect, but looking at the general themes I think it's clear at this point that the remain arguments have turned out to be more accurate. I mean, nothing that brexiters said would happen has happened. At least remainers were largely correct even if not on the specifics.

 

And Matt was talking specifically about Osborne's deliberate cooking of the books to and near on everything the Treasury's report said has been wrong. The Treasury performing analysis to find the results it wanted is quite different to anyone over the age of 5 knowing there might be some short to medium term consequences of the decision.

 

And really what has happened and will continue to show is Remain overstated the downsides and Leave overstated the upsides.

Edited 25 January 2018 by Kopfkino

[Rogstanley]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

And Matt was talking specifically about Osborne's deliberate cooking of the books to and near on everything the Treasury's report said has been wrong. The Treasury performing analysis to find the results it wanted is quite different to anyone over the age of 5 knowing there might be some short to medium term consequences of the decision.

Matt didn't make it clear what he was specifically talking about.

 

Negative consequences. Not just consequences. The predictions from remain were of negative consequences, and negative consequences are what we've seen. Anyone over the age of 3 can see that.

[Rogstanley]

BBC breaking news: homelessness at highest level since records began

 

 

Absolutely disgusting. This government is utterly reprehensible. Ashamed to be British this morning.

Edited 25 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Rogstanley]

More breaking news on the bbc: secondary school education standards in freefall.

 

Jesus Christ, this country really is falling to pieces.

[Fox Ulike]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

And Matt was talking specifically about Osborne's deliberate cooking of the books to and near on everything the Treasury's report said has been wrong. The Treasury performing analysis to find the results it wanted is quite different to anyone over the age of 5 knowing there might be some short to medium term consequences of the decision.

 

And really what has happened and will continue to show is Remain overstated the downsides and Leave overstated the upsides.

 

I think most of us can agree to that. So the question now is why any of us feel compelled to abide by the decision of the original referendum if neither side knew what they were talking about?

 

Brexit isn’t going to be a disaster but that’s not a cause for celebration. It clearly isn’t going to deliver what it promised to deliver.

 

The referendum seems to have been so long ago, and so much new information has come to light since then. We made our decisions  based on a complete lack of knowledge of either the process and cost of leaving, or the consequences of doing so.

 

If we had a second referendum and Leave won, I for one would be 100% behind Brexit. As it is, it just seems to be as Cameron says, a ‘mistake’ which people like you are too stubborn to admit to.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 what about this bit?

 

“The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain”.

 

“The analysis also presents a downside scenario, finding that the shock could be much more profound, meaning the effect on the economy would be worse still. The rise in uncertainty could be amplified, the volatility in financial markets more tumultuous, and the extent of the impact to living standards more acute. In this severe scenario, GDP would be 6% smaller, there would be a deeper recession, and the number of people made unemployed would rise by around 800,000 compared with a vote to remain. The hit to wages, inflation, house prices and borrowing would be larger. There is a credible risk that this more acute scenario could materialise”.

We didn't go into recession and hundreds of thousands of jobs weren't lost. But growth had significantly weakened, the pound dropped like a stone, wages are now falling in real terms. Not the apocalypse that was predicted but still not at all good - enough for a government to be in severe trouble if it wasn't caused by the electorate.

[Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

I think most of us can agree to that. So the question now is why any of us feel compelled to abide by the decision of the original referendum if neither side knew what they were talking about?

 

Brexit isn’t going to be a disaster but that’s not a cause for celebration. It clearly isn’t going to deliver what it promised to deliver.

 

The referendum seems to have been so long ago, and so much new information has come to light since then. We made our decisions  based on a complete lack of knowledge of either the process and cost of leaving, or the consequences of doing so.

 

If we had a second referendum and Leave won, I for one would be 100% behind Brexit. As it is, it just seems to be as Cameron says, a ‘mistake’ which people like you are too stubborn to admit to.

 

I'm not too stubborn to admit it, but 18 months with nothing actually happening doesn't really provide any evidence that it's a mistake. Within a handful of posts we have Buce giving us the typical 'it hasn't happened yet' but now somehow its stubborn if you're not admitting its a mistake. It's pretty difficult to admit its a mistake if it hasn't happened yet. I mean it's frankly bizarre that a second referendum would convince you, despite the fact it would be based on no knowledge of what will actually happen when we leave. 

 

Besides I have said I wish we had voted to stay. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I'm not too stubborn to admit it, but 18 months with nothing actually happening doesn't really provide any evidence that it's a mistake. Within a handful of posts we have Buce giving us the typical 'it hasn't happened yet' but now somehow its stubborn if you're not admitting its a mistake. It's pretty difficult to admit its a mistake if it hasn't happened yet. I mean it's frankly bizarre that a second referendum would convince you, despite the fact it would be based on no knowledge of what will actually happen when we leave. 

 

Besides I have said I wish we had voted to stay. 

But a significant drop in growth, the pound and real wages have happened.

[Strokes]

39 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

BBC breaking news: homelessness at highest level since records began

 

 

Absolutely disgusting. This government is utterly reprehensible. Ashamed to be British this morning.

When did records begin?

[Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

We didn't go into recession and hundreds of thousands of jobs weren't lost. But growth had significantly weakened, the pound dropped like a stone, wages are now falling in real terms. Not the apocalypse that was predicted but still not at all good - enough for a government to be in severe trouble if it wasn't caused by the electorate.

 

How do you know growth has significantly weakened? The only thing you can judge that on is the OBR's March 2016 forecasts. Growth in 2016 was 1.9% (mainly thanks to the latter half of the year after Brexit vote), joint highest in the G7 and marginally below the OBR's forecast of 2% but also perfectly within any possible margin of error. Now 2017 provides a great example of how you know the OBR has **** all idea, with March 2016 forecasts suggesting 2.2% and we find out first estimates tomorrow, predictions are for 1.8% and likely revised up to 1.9% again later. Okay potential growth loss there. But November 2016 predictions were for 1.4%, four months later in March 2017 that became 2%, and in November it was back at 1.5%. Point is, the OBR would themselves tell you its forecasts are difficult and imprecise, it has shown in the last 15 months it's forecasts aren't particularly good, it has since March 2016 admitted to overstating productivity, and we can look at its forecasting record further back to see its struggle. So how on earth can you say growth has significantly weakened. And don't try and tell me that taking the OBR's predictions and saying GDP is at most 0.5% lower, is significant weakening. 

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

When did records begin?

 

1998, at least:

 

[Guest MattP]

56 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Matt didn't make it clear what he was specifically talking about.

 

Negative consequences. Not just consequences. The predictions from remain were of negative consequences, and negative consequences are what we've seen. Anyone over the age of 3 can see that.

 

Quote

 

Everything they predicted so far has turned out to be total nonsense based on fantasy figures the treasury deliberately set out to get.

 

Cameron and Osborne just expected we would never find out as they thought they could scare us all into voting to stay.

 

 

You seriously couldn't work out from that post I was talking about predictions from the chancellor and treasury? Cripes.

[Fox Ulike]

27 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I'm not too stubborn to admit it, but 18 months with nothing actually happening doesn't really provide any evidence that it's a mistake. Within a handful of posts we have Buce giving us the typical 'it hasn't happened yet' but now somehow its stubborn if you're not admitting its a mistake. It's pretty difficult to admit its a mistake if it hasn't happened yet. I mean it's frankly bizarre that a second referendum would convince you, despite the fact it would be based on no knowledge of what will actually happen when we leave. 

 

Besides I have said I wish we had voted to stay. 

If there's no "evidence that it's a mistake" on what basis are you saying that "Leave overstated the upsides"?

[Buce]

 

And under the current government:

 

 

[Guest MattP]

24 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But a significant drop in growth, the pound and real wages have happened.

Significant drop in growth? Do you know something we all don't?

You've been telling us on here real wages have been falling ever since the Tories took over so what does the vote to leave have to do with that?

[Rogstanley]

BBC now reporting that violent crimes and sex offences have risen sharply in the last 12 months 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

Significant drop in growth? Do you know something we all don't?

You've been telling us on here real wages have been falling ever since the Tories took over so what does the vote to leave have to do with that?

Before the referendum we were top of the g7 for growth. After we were bottom. Not that hard to understand, surely?

 

And I haven't said that at all. Real wages have risen by a miniscule amount over 7 years. They have risen slowest at the bottom when housing costs are taken into account. Over the last year they have been falling. Across the whole of the tory time in government they have risen at the slowest rate since Napoleonic times. Don't tell me though, this is still good news somehow.

[Kopfkino]

33 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

If there's no "evidence that it's a mistake" on what basis are you saying that "Leave overstated the upsides"?

 

Just sense, just like you saying it won't be a disaster. It won't be Patrick Minford's sunshine and roses where our welfare increases by whatever he said. My opinion on that hasn't wavered so it's not evidence for a mistake. 

[Guest]

Seven in 10 UK workers are 'chronically broke', study finds

Economic insecurity is ‘new normal’, with only 30% saying they live comfortably

 

The survey found 40% of people had permanently precarious finances, and another 30% could not get by. Photograph: AntonioGuillem/Getty Images/iStockphoto

 

Amelia Hill

Published:11:35 GMT+00:00 Thu 25 January 2018

 Follow Amelia Hill

 

Economic insecurity has become the “new normal” in the UK with at least 70% of the UK’s working population “chronically broke”, according to a study by the thinktank the Royal Society of Arts.

Thriving, striving or just about surviving, the RSA/Populus survey of more than 2,000 workers, found that while about 30% of respondents said they lived comfortably, 40% said their finances were permanently precarious. The remaining 30% said they were not managing to get by.

“Economic insecurity now stretches right throughout our labour market, including within jobs that appear safe on the surface,” said Brhmie Balaram, the author of the report and a senior researcher at the RSA.

AdvertisementHide

 

According to the report, 32% of the UK’s workers have less than £500 in savings and 41% have less than £1,000. Almost 30% are concerned about their level of debt while 43% of workers do not have anyone in their household they could depend on to support them financially in the event of hardship. Fewer than half of employees (44%) feel they have progressed in their careers over the last five years; only 40% feel they have good opportunities to progress in future.

“From retail workers to warehouse operatives, and from care workers to cleaners, we are beginning to uncover the hidden millions who are chronically broke year in, year out,” said Balaram. “The real danger for this group of workers is a childcare bill unpaid and yet another rent rise around the corner.”

UK labour market statistics released on Wednesdayshowed employment reaching a record high last year. But, the RSA report makes clear, wider economic trends suggest workers are worse off as real wages fall and in-work poverty rises.

The RSA report identifies what it calls Britain’s “new class structure”. It also launched an online tool that lets people explore which “class” they fall into.

• The chronically precarious: the reliably broke, people in this group are typically on a steady contract albeit with low pay. 60% have less than £1,000 saved and they have low job satisfaction and little autonomy at work. Typical job: full-time sales assistant.
• The acutely precarious: usually broke but with significant income “yoyo-ing”. Work is often low-paid but, unlike the chronically precarious, irregular. This is a young group and 45% have a degree. Typical job: zero-hours hospitality.
• The flexi-workers: love their job, even if it doesn’t pay well: 83% are satisfied at work but 59% earn less than £21,000 a year. High levels of savings: many are redundant “second careerers”. They value autonomy above security. Typical job: freelance photographer.
• The steady-staters: feel well treated (90%) and well paid (69%), even if work is a means to an end. But they have low savings, and rely on work for income so are vulnerable to a shock. Their routine jobs are at high risk of automation. Typical job: public sector administrator.
• The idealists: mid-earning, passionate and often millennials (50% under 35), 70% think they make a positive contribution to society at work. They are most likely to rely on others, such as parents, for income. They are urbane and 25% have more than £10,000 saved. Typical job: charity employee.
• The strivers: these have regular jobs with high income and high savings, but worry the link between hard work and fair pay has broken: 73% are stressed but only 20% think their pay reflects their efforts. Typical job: middle manager.
• The high-flyers: the wealthiest group: 55% have more than £10,000 in savings. They are successful at adapting to automation, and the most likely group to value new technology. They report high job security, high autonomy and high fulfilment. Typical job: director of an IT services business.

There are now nearly 1 million people on zero-hour contracts and 1.7 million in temporary work. A record 4.8 million are self-employed, while there are an estimated 1.1 million people in Britain’s gig economy, which – in just five years – will equal the number of workers in NHS England.

“Despite the differences between the seven segments persuasively described in this report we can clearly see how many people are impacted by common problems,” said Matthew Taylor, the chief executive of the RSA, who recently carried out an employment review for Theresa May. “Precarious work is a theme, as is a lack of autonomy or control at work (both issues underline the call for good work in the review I undertook for government last year).”

The report calls for new rights, responsibilities and a modern social contract based on support for people as they navigate changes to the cost of living, technology, and Britain’s international competitiveness.

It says the government must explore universal childcare; pay for the self-employed to take maternity or paternity leave; devolve the “national living wage” to councils, and pioneer personal budgets for reskilling as the age of automation looms.

[ajthefox]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

And under the current government:

 

 

Quote

 

Rough sleeping has increased for the seventh consecutive year in England, latest official figures show, with charities warning that these fail to capture the real level of street homelessness.

Statistics published by the government on Thursday reveal that an estimated 4,751 people bedded down outside overnight in 2017, up 15% on the previous year.

The figures, based on single night snapshot street counts or paper estimates by local authorities, show that London, where figures rose by 18%, remains the centre of rough sleeping, accounting for nearly a quarter of all rough sleepers.

 

The rest of England recorded a 14% rise, with the biggest regional increase in the north west (39%), where rough sleeping has almost doubled over the past two years, and quadrupled since 2010. Hotspots included Tameside, Salford and Manchester.

 

Rough sleeping has also increased rapidly in areas of the wider south east, where Oxford, Southend-on-Sea, Thanet, Swindon, Medway, Eastbourne, Hastings, Worthing, Peterborough, Reading and Wiltshire all recorded rises at at least double the national average.

 

Homelessness charities said the figures, up 169% since 2010, were a catastrophe and and a scandal, while Labour blamed government policies for what it called the “shameful” figures and promised to eliminate rough sleeping in the first term of a Labour administration.

 

 

 

I think that graph has been presented in a slightly misleading way but even the most ardent Tory can surely not deny these figures are about as clear as they possibly could be that Tory policy is causing homelessness.

 

Correlation =/= causation and homelessness is a very complex issue but the numbers are clear as day.

 

[Guest]

Proportion of the population that owns a home has today been confirmed to have dropped to the lowest level since 1985.