Personally I have never seen how we could expect to get a good deal from the EU. They have a collective interest in screwing us. The negotiations are largely a waste of time. We should have triggered Article 50 last year and got in with dealing with the consequences.
Just had a chat with Willow Winston the Millwall lady standing locally. Told her I wouldn't be voting for her but wished her luck, and she was quite charming.
Wonder if Labour would be polling higher or lower with a more 'conventional/palatable' leader? Is Corbyn an asset or liability? At the start of the campaign I would have said the latter but now I am not sure. What do people think?
I think you raise an interesting point. I suspect that Corbyn's outsider status is attracting some of those who fall into the 'populist' camp,ie the more he is attacked by the political establishment the more some people feel like supporting him,despite him being a personal and political failure (a bit like some of the support for Trump or the Five Star people in Italy).
Wow. Huge change of direction for them. Do they still sing System Addict & Rain or Shine? In Italian??
Just had a chat with Willow Winston the Millwall lady standing locally. Told her I wouldn't be voting for her but wished her luck, and she was quite charming.
Did she have any teeth ?
Sorry if this is kind of 'off message', but I was very impressed with Willow. Her stance on most things were the same as mine, and she was quick thinking, quick witted, confident and articulate. All in all a very impressive effort from somebody who is new to this kind of thing.
I'm no economist but haven't the Tories benefited from a few rounds of QE since they've been in power. I thought this has been used to kickstart the economy etc.
Also people have enjoyed silly interests rates on their mortgages. Does this not contribute to the overall perceived good health of the economy under the Tories
It may sound a bit of a conspiracy theory but at the time, inflation was also kept artificially low by the price of petrol. The Obama administration was trying to politically destabilise Russia by causing the price of oil to fall. The Russian economy was over-reliant on oil exports, the Americans leaned on their OPEC allies to flood the supply of oil and cause the rouble to crash.
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. Instead the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
I'm no economist but haven't the Tories benefited from a few rounds of QE since they've been in power. I thought this has been used to kickstart the economy etc.
Also people have enjoyed silly interests rates on their mortgages. Does this not contribute to the overall perceived good health of the economy under the Tories
It may sound a bit of a conspiracy theory but at the time, inflation was also kept artificially low by the price of petrol. The Obama administration was trying to politically destabilise Russia by causing the price of oil to fall. The Russian economy was over-reliant on oil exports, the Americans leaned on their OPEC allies to flood the supply of oil and cause the rouble to crash.
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. Instead the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought that oil prices were forced down by the OPEC nations seeking to make American fracking operations uneconomic and force the US to stop the US become self sufficient and keep them reliant on buying middle eastern oil.
I'm no economist but haven't the Tories benefited from a few rounds of QE since they've been in power. I thought this has been used to kickstart the economy etc.
Also people have enjoyed silly interests rates on their mortgages. Does this not contribute to the overall perceived good health of the economy under the Tories
It may sound a bit of a conspiracy theory but at the time, inflation was also kept artificially low by the price of petrol. The Obama administration was trying to politically destabilise Russia by causing the price of oil to fall. The Russian economy was over-reliant on oil exports, the Americans leaned on their OPEC allies to flood the supply of oil and cause the rouble to crash.
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. Instead the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought that oil prices were forced down by the OPEC nations seeking to make American fracking operations uneconomic and force the US to stop the US become self sufficient and keep them reliant on buying middle eastern oil.
Could well be, but inflation was kept artificially low and this has eased the pressure of wage stagnation after QE.
I'm no economist but haven't the Tories benefited from a few rounds of QE since they've been in power. I thought this has been used to kickstart the economy etc.
Also people have enjoyed silly interests rates on their mortgages. Does this not contribute to the overall perceived good health of the economy under the Tories
It may sound a bit of a conspiracy theory but at the time, inflation was also kept artificially low by the price of petrol. The Obama administration was trying to politically destabilise Russia by causing the price of oil to fall. The Russian economy was over-reliant on oil exports, the Americans leaned on their OPEC allies to flood the supply of oil and cause the rouble to crash.
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. Instead the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought that oil prices were forced down by the OPEC nations seeking to make American fracking operations uneconomic and force the US to stop the US become self sufficient and keep them reliant on buying middle eastern oil.
I don't know the full story, but I know that this is very true and that the fracking of shale has meant the US are self sufficient. It also has caused a lot of difficulty for the US based providers of oilfield services, since the oil companies have less money to pay for new oil fields.
The main problem with our dismal cast of politicians appears to be that most of them have progressed to their position through membership of an increasingly partisan and aggressive party system, where self-interest trumps national interest or introspection at almost every turn. These are people who for the most part are only concerned with their own wealth and power, and are exposed when called upon to do right by the people. Individuals with integrity and open minds will not be coaxed out with higher pay - quite the opposite - in fact I'd bring MP pay down to the national average. The most suitable politicians aren't put off by the pay, they're put off by the quasi-Masonic party structures and the need to curry favour to get anywhere. Running as an independent is a non-starter. Running for anyone except the main two or three parties is a non-starter. And getting into those parties means playing a dismal and petty game that most people with any sense would avoid. I would love to be in a position to change things myself, but I have no desire whatsoever to negotiate my way through even Labour's back-alleys and secret crypts. Perhaps the party is changing now, but my Green membership history is probably enough to rule me out for good. And I'm sure other principled people are in similar situations.
I agree with 75% of that. Both the main political parties in this country are shocking.
I'm no economist but haven't the Tories benefited from a few rounds of QE since they've been in power. I thought this has been used to kickstart the economy etc.
Also people have enjoyed silly interests rates on their mortgages. Does this not contribute to the overall perceived good health of the economy under the Tories
It may sound a bit of a conspiracy theory but at the time, inflation was also kept artificially low by the price of petrol. The Obama administration was trying to politically destabilise Russia by causing the price of oil to fall. The Russian economy was over-reliant on oil exports, the Americans leaned on their OPEC allies to flood the supply of oil and cause the rouble to crash.
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. Instead the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought that oil prices were forced down by the OPEC nations seeking to make American fracking operations uneconomic and force the US to stop the US become self sufficient and keep them reliant on buying middle eastern oil.
I, also, might be wrong, but the fall in prices had a huge impact on the income of other non-OPEC producers, who were forced to increase output to maintain income, this lowering prices further, etc., etc.
I do remember hearing that the Iranians, at one stage, were attempting to stockpile oil in a fleet of tankers in the hope that prices would recover more quickly than they did.
Wonder if Labour would be polling higher or lower with a more 'conventional/palatable' leader? Is Corbyn an asset or liability? At the start of the campaign I would have said the latter but now I am not sure. What do people think?
I think you raise an interesting point. I suspect that Corbyn's outsider status is attracting some of those who fall into the 'populist' camp,ie the more he is attacked by the political establishment the more some people feel like supporting him,despite him being a personal and political failure (a bit like some of the support for Trump or the Five Star people in Italy).
Wow. Huge change of direction for them. Do they still sing System Addict & Rain or Shine? In Italian??
Sadly, the lead singer (Denise?) has let herself go a bit as well....
I don't pay too much notice to polls but that would be a major embarrassing to May and show the PLP that Corbyn is their man and not someone the far left have put in place. Seems too good to be true.
I don't pay too much notice to polls but that would be a major embarrassing to May and show the PLP that Corbyn is their man and not someone the far left have put in place. Seems too good to be true.
4 seats swinging from SNP to Tory?
Wouldn't surprise me too much - the SNP have not performed well in government and their almost clean sweep last time round is unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Dippenhall and Greenie please advise something positive from seven years of Tory rule. May called the election on Brexit issues but she won't say wether my German friend Heidi will have to return home, will CAP grants to farmers be maintained, employment laws protected, fishing rights changed and a thousand other issues. Uncosted vague promises. She is winging it.
In my opinion calling the referendum was a positive and I can also say ive never been out of work under Tory government, my industry is doing well and under Corbyns I can only see people being struck off due to the over zealous tax's imposed on business owners, that coupled with the £10 minimum wage concerns me hugely and I predict we'll see a lot of people out of work..
Although I'm not voting Tory so not sure why you've asked me that.
Hello - it's me, I'm back with the same question you refused to answer (three times) this time last year.
You said that EU workers were driving down wages in your industry, which was one of the reasons you were voting out. At the same time you repeated the mantra you have above, that you had never been doing so well as under the Tories. I asked you at the time how that could be, both could not be true. You ignored the question. You now state again that your whole industry is doing well. I ask again, how can both be true?
I'm no economist but haven't the Tories benefited from a few rounds of QE since they've been in power. I thought this has been used to kickstart the economy etc.
Also people have enjoyed silly interests rates on their mortgages. Does this not contribute to the overall perceived good health of the economy under the Tories
It may sound a bit of a conspiracy theory but at the time, inflation was also kept artificially low by the price of petrol. The Obama administration was trying to politically destabilise Russia by causing the price of oil to fall. The Russian economy was over-reliant on oil exports, the Americans leaned on their OPEC allies to flood the supply of oil and cause the rouble to crash.
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the back benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
that will the capital investment dippenhall was talking about a few pages back
Won't be a popular point on here but May and Rudd have been running a country and an election campaign during these past difficult days. Corbyn and Abbott have only needed to run their campaign and both on specific days of new policy initiatives where they should have been fully clued up and focussed have massively fouled up. Doesn't bode well if they were in government.
No lover of the tories but they have my vote. If David Milliband or Andy burnham had been in charge it could have been a different story.
May and Rudd have not been running the country - parliament has been dissolved until after the election.
No G7 no Cobra!!
The correct response was "Sorry I got that one wrong, I wasn't fully clued up on the day I wrote that post, I massively fouled up".
I'm no economist but haven't the Tories benefited from a few rounds of QE since they've been in power. I thought this has been used to kickstart the economy etc.
Also people have enjoyed silly interests rates on their mortgages. Does this not contribute to the overall perceived good health of the economy under the Tories
It may sound a bit of a conspiracy theory but at the time, inflation was also kept artificially low by the price of petrol. The Obama administration was trying to politically destabilise Russia by causing the price of oil to fall. The Russian economy was over-reliant on oil exports, the Americans leaned on their OPEC allies to flood the supply of oil and cause the rouble to crash.
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. Instead the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought that oil prices were forced down by the OPEC nations seeking to make American fracking operations uneconomic and force the US to stop the US become self sufficient and keep them reliant on buying middle eastern oil.
I don't know the full story, but I know that this is very true and that the fracking of shale has meant the US are self sufficient. It also has caused a lot of difficulty for the US based providers of oilfield services, since the oil companies have less money to pay for new oil fields.
This ismy understanding of it - it is more expensive to use fracking, but there is a price point where if OPEC charge too much for oil they go into direct competition, so it is in their interest to keep the price at the levels it is now. It is also in their interests to ensure production levels are sufficent to meet demand.
The point about Labour not wanting to win the election, I can understand, although I don't agree with. I think the next election could be the one to win as it is extremely unlikely this period is going to be great for us as a country. I think it would be a shame that policies which will rejuvinate the country would then have to wait 5 years. Labour's economic policies are economically sound, it is the Tories who are sticking with a policy that never works and belongs in teh nursery playground. But if we have a workforce with low wages, somebody benefits and that is what the Tories are all about - as Fiish rightly alluded to. We all are a commodity like oil for the corporations and elite.
Lots to consider there as usual. I'll be fact checking a lot of your assertions with my Swedish mate. dont worry, he is far to the right of me, and is CEO of Haki, a scaffolding company. Nevertheless....
In the meantime, i am glad you brought up the issue of economic predictions of Remainers. I tried to explain ad nauseam that no sensible person with any economic background was predicting instant recession. My personal prediction was that we would see U.K. growth slowing to a rate lower than that in leading euro zone countries. ( wheats for most of last year it was outperforming most, as much touted by Bojo and co.
In that regard, what then are your comments about the Q1 GDP growth figures for,the U.K., and for the euro zone?
Never disputed the possibility of Brexit causing a short term drop in growth. Consumption is what drives our economy and anything that reduces consumer spending will hit output. There would be no double standards if I voted for Brexit, Corbyn and a recession.
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Have people absorbed the significance of Dippy's answer? Here we have arguably the most intellectually rigorous Brexiteer on Cl, conceding that we could see a fall in GDP. In this respect he differs from those shrill immigration-fixated Brexiteers who denounced all such predictions as Project Fear. Respect.
And now here is the significance for the election and particularly health service funding. The Tories are promising increases in funding. And how will it be funded? From economic growth...
I was in favour of remain, because I knew the EU would not let us leave without stitching us up. I am no fan of the EU, mainly because of one word. And that word is not immigration, but Germany. I don't hate the German people, but I do hate all what that country stands for. It controls the EU and does so for its on ends. It forces Austerity on countries that don't need it and sets rates for itself not them.
A lot of countries who are our natural allies in Europe would be inspired by Corbyn. I think him winning the election could make the EU less stable. His policies will make this country better and that will inspire others. He could turn Brexit into a positive.
Unless it can be avoided, and it usually can. I never buy any German product.
Won't be a popular point on here but May and Rudd have been running a country and an election campaign during these past difficult days. Corbyn and Abbott have only needed to run their campaign and both on specific days of new policy initiatives where they should have been fully clued up and focussed have massively fouled up. Doesn't bode well if they were in government.
No lover of the tories but they have my vote. If David Milliband or Andy burnham had been in charge it could have been a different story.
May and Rudd have not been running the country - parliament has been dissolved until after the election.
No G7 no Cobra!!
The correct response was "Sorry I got that one wrong, I wasn't fully clued up on the day I wrote that post, I massively fouled up".
Comments
If this is true .....
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. Instead the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
I do remember hearing that the Iranians, at one stage, were attempting to stockpile oil in a fleet of tankers in the hope that prices would recover more quickly than they did.
https://bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=xgOveqOm&id=7626B7ECCFCB5544BE540EC226054514B6613FFA&thid=OIP.xgOveqOmyiumbRRL947HPQDnEs&q=beppe+grillo&simid=608030949569462313&selectedIndex=18&ajaxhist=0
@holyjo I wouldn't get too excited yet:
And it wouldn't go unnoticed that the date that YouGov analysis is published is 31/5. Or, "the end of May".
4 seats swinging from SNP to Tory?
You said that EU workers were driving down wages in your industry, which was one of the reasons you were voting out. At the same time you repeated the mantra you have above, that you had never been doing so well as under the Tories. I asked you at the time how that could be, both could not be true. You ignored the question. You now state again that your whole industry is doing well. I ask again, how can both be true?
The point about Labour not wanting to win the election, I can understand, although I don't agree with. I think the next election could be the one to win as it is extremely unlikely this period is going to be great for us as a country. I think it would be a shame that policies which will rejuvinate the country would then have to wait 5 years. Labour's economic policies are economically sound, it is the Tories who are sticking with a policy that never works and belongs in teh nursery playground. But if we have a workforce with low wages, somebody benefits and that is what the Tories are all about - as Fiish rightly alluded to. We all are a commodity like oil for the corporations and elite.
And now here is the significance for the election and particularly health service funding. The Tories are promising increases in funding. And how will it be funded? From economic growth...
Ahem...
A lot of countries who are our natural allies in Europe would be inspired by Corbyn. I think him winning the election could make the EU less stable. His policies will make this country better and that will inspire others. He could turn Brexit into a positive.
Unless it can be avoided, and it usually can. I never buy any German product.