FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Question time Tonight 01;02:18
Question time Tonight 01;02:18
Jump to: Newest in thread
"So what be the topics tonight?????"
No doubt there will be questions on brexit and the NHS again. Be Good to see a Brexit supporting Labour MP on the show tonight, John Mann who campaigned for Leave during the referendum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So what be the topics tonight?????
No doubt there will be questions on brexit and the NHS again. Be Good to see a Brexit supporting Labour MP on the show tonight, John Mann who campaigned for Leave during the referendum. "
yep same old questions from the last show and the one before that and oh what’s the point
It’s s crap show now anyway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So what be the topics tonight?????
No doubt there will be questions on brexit and the NHS again. Be Good to see a Brexit supporting Labour MP on the show tonight, John Mann who campaigned for Leave during the referendum. yep same old questions from the last show and the one before that and oh what’s the point
It’s s crap show now anyway "
I agree it's not as good as once was. I still tune in though.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what be the topics tonight?????
No doubt there will be questions on brexit and the NHS again. Be Good to see a Brexit supporting Labour MP on the show tonight, John Mann who campaigned for Leave during the referendum. yep same old questions from the last show and the one before that and oh what’s the point
It’s s crap show now anyway I agree it's not as good as once was. I still tune in though...."
It was better a few years ago....I was in the audience in Liverpool in 2009.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It wasn't as bad as it could have been - except for the disruptive heckler who disturbed several times and should have been thrown out.
Some reasonable coverage of the need to increase the percentage of people forced to have non-consensual sex who report to police and get successful prosecutions against the vermin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It was in darlington yesterday, they voted most for brexit and will be hit by 16% with the economy, not very intelligent, that area have high poverty, which is very stereotypical with brexit areas, no wonder the topic wasnt about brexit lol. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was in darlington yesterday, they voted most for brexit and will be hit by 16% with the economy, not very intelligent, that area have high poverty, which is very stereotypical with brexit areas, no wonder the topic wasnt about brexit lol."
There was a question about Brexit on last night's show. The 16% you mention is a forecast, a prediction basically a wild guess. As Leave means Leave chairman Richard Tice said last night these forecasts from the Treasury are rubbish, you put rubbish in One end and rubbish comes out the other, many of the Treasury forecasts about Brexit have already turned out to be completely wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Terry Christian spoke over the females on the panel was so rude then at the end when they spoke about women's rights tried to speak up for woman he looked a total prick he should of been asked to leave spoilt the whole show for me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was in darlington yesterday, they voted most for brexit and will be hit by 16% with the economy, not very intelligent, that area have high poverty, which is very stereotypical with brexit areas, no wonder the topic wasnt about brexit lol.
There was a question about Brexit on last night's show. The 16% you mention is a forecast, a prediction basically a wild guess. As Leave means Leave chairman Richard Tice said last night these forecasts from the Treasury are rubbish, you put rubbish in One end and rubbish comes out the other, many of the Treasury forecasts about Brexit have already turned out to be completely wrong. "
Maybe you should give us some of these many treasury forecasts that were rubbish and then we'll know what you're actually talking about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terry Christian spoke over the females on the panel was so rude then at the end when they spoke about women's rights tried to speak up for woman he looked a total prick he should of been asked to leave spoilt the whole show for me "
Unfortunately this is the remainers tactics everywhere.
Everything is negativity from them. Doom and gloom, just like their project fear campaign leading up to the Brexit vote. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was in darlington yesterday, they voted most for brexit and will be hit by 16% with the economy, not very intelligent, that area have high poverty, which is very stereotypical with brexit areas, no wonder the topic wasnt about brexit lol.
There was a question about Brexit on last night's show. The 16% you mention is a forecast, a prediction basically a wild guess. As Leave means Leave chairman Richard Tice said last night these forecasts from the Treasury are rubbish, you put rubbish in One end and rubbish comes out the other, many of the Treasury forecasts about Brexit have already turned out to be completely wrong.
Maybe you should give us some of these many treasury forecasts that were rubbish and then we'll know what you're actually talking about."
Well if you watched the show last night Richard Tice gave a few examples like the Treasury forecast a recession in the event of a leave vote, there has still been no recession and instead we've seen continued growth. The Treasury also forecast upto 500,000 jobs being lost in the economy in the event of a leave vote but since the referendum the UK has produced an additional 250,000 new jobs into the economy, employment levels remain high and unemployment levels are at historic lows. They also warned investment would dry up but investment has continued, London was just named the tech investment Capital of Europe for 2017. We also just saw Productivity hit a 6 year high in the UK last month. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The trouble with the original treasury forecast is it was measured as a difference to staying in, without saying what staying in would look like.
So there’s no way of testing it’s predictions against reality.
For example, it predicted a drop of gdp of 3% compared to staying in. But did staying in assume a drop, a plateau or a rise ?
We generallly track consistently with Germany gdp (from entering Europe in the 70s til today we have just over doubled our gdp per capital with Germany only 3% ish behind. Pretty close.)
Since the vote there gdp has gone up ish 0.2 % per Q. Ours down by about the same. Given we’re ar something like 0.3% per Q if external stuff has bouyed GDP by 0.2 then without it we’d be tracking pretty close to nil growth. And that isn’t a million miles away from recession.
For me, the more worrying part about all the forecast is the meta view which is negative. There’s only one view I know of which is Mindord. And he’s notorious for self referencing and not seeking peer review.
If there was more positive views we could have a good choice of debate here. But the quality of argument tends to be *you predicted thunder. It only rained. Your forecasts are crap* while gleefully asking to believe their bones when they say it will be sunny.
Many of the forecasts have been directionally sound. There “positive” news have tended to be on the longer term trend since the GFC. There has been very little positive shocks which say brexit is making things significantly better than not brexitIng. Just it hasn’t caused all the damage predicted. That’s not a great economic news story. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
no point watching after the shows climax a few weeks ago when democratic legend Gina Miller absolutely kicked dom raab to death live on air ... utterly priceless  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
who cares. we're dealing with reality, such as the fact that there's no point watching after the shows climax a few weeks ago when democratic legend Gina Miller absolutely kicked dom raab to death live on air   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
Watching tonight has reinforced my opinion that it is about time that people paid for their decisions and actions. Carry on Theresa, hardest possible Brexit and let these seemingly ignorant northern luddites pay a heavy price for their decisions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was in darlington yesterday, they voted most for brexit and will be hit by 16% with the economy, not very intelligent, that area have high poverty, which is very stereotypical with brexit areas, no wonder the topic wasnt about brexit lol.
There was a question about Brexit on last night's show. The 16% you mention is a forecast, a prediction basically a wild guess. As Leave means Leave chairman Richard Tice said last night these forecasts from the Treasury are rubbish, you put rubbish in One end and rubbish comes out the other, many of the Treasury forecasts about Brexit have already turned out to be completely wrong. "
How can Treasury forecasts be wrong on an event which had happened yet? The Treasury had a poor record of forecasting, but on this it is still speculation on a future event where the parameters are yet to be set. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was in darlington yesterday, they voted most for brexit and will be hit by 16% with the economy, not very intelligent, that area have high poverty, which is very stereotypical with brexit areas, no wonder the topic wasnt about brexit lol.
There was a question about Brexit on last night's show. The 16% you mention is a forecast, a prediction basically a wild guess. As Leave means Leave chairman Richard Tice said last night these forecasts from the Treasury are rubbish, you put rubbish in One end and rubbish comes out the other, many of the Treasury forecasts about Brexit have already turned out to be completely wrong.
How can Treasury forecasts be wrong on an event which had happened yet? The Treasury had a poor record of forecasting, but on this it is still speculation on a future event where the parameters are yet to be set. "
You're mistaken as the Treasury made a number of forecasts on the effects of a Leave vote alone (the act of the country voting to Leave as they did on June 23rd 2016). That event happened, it's in the past and the treasury forecasts around it have been proven false already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"The trouble with the original treasury forecast is it was measured as a difference to staying in, without saying what staying in would look like.
So there’s no way of testing it’s predictions against reality.
For example, it predicted a drop of gdp of 3% compared to staying in. But did staying in assume a drop, a plateau or a rise ?
We generallly track consistently with Germany gdp (from entering Europe in the 70s til today we have just over doubled our gdp per capital with Germany only 3% ish behind. Pretty close.)
Since the vote there gdp has gone up ish 0.2 % per Q. Ours down by about the same. Given we’re ar something like 0.3% per Q if external stuff has bouyed GDP by 0.2 then without it we’d be tracking pretty close to nil growth. And that isn’t a million miles away from recession.
For me, the more worrying part about all the forecast is the meta view which is negative. There’s only one view I know of which is Mindord. And he’s notorious for self referencing and not seeking peer review.
If there was more positive views we could have a good choice of debate here. But the quality of argument tends to be *you predicted thunder. It only rained. Your forecasts are crap* while gleefully asking to believe their bones when they say it will be sunny.
Many of the forecasts have been directionally sound. There “positive” news have tended to be on the longer term trend since the GFC. There has been very little positive shocks which say brexit is making things significantly better than not brexitIng. Just it hasn’t caused all the damage predicted. That’s not a great economic news story. "
So they did a 15 year forecast comparing a detailed analysis of a scenario (Brexit), against no analysis of the alternative (remain)?
If I hold out both my hands, one open with 5 coins in, and the other closed, a)how many coins have i got in my closed hand?, and b) what's the difference between the two?, would you be able to tell me? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The trouble with the original treasury forecast is it was measured as a difference to staying in, without saying what staying in would look like.
So there’s no way of testing it’s predictions against reality.
For example, it predicted a drop of gdp of 3% compared to staying in. But did staying in assume a drop, a plateau or a rise ?
We generallly track consistently with Germany gdp (from entering Europe in the 70s til today we have just over doubled our gdp per capital with Germany only 3% ish behind. Pretty close.)
Since the vote there gdp has gone up ish 0.2 % per Q. Ours down by about the same. Given we’re ar something like 0.3% per Q if external stuff has bouyed GDP by 0.2 then without it we’d be tracking pretty close to nil growth. And that isn’t a million miles away from recession.
For me, the more worrying part about all the forecast is the meta view which is negative. There’s only one view I know of which is Mindord. And he’s notorious for self referencing and not seeking peer review.
If there was more positive views we could have a good choice of debate here. But the quality of argument tends to be *you predicted thunder. It only rained. Your forecasts are crap* while gleefully asking to believe their bones when they say it will be sunny.
Many of the forecasts have been directionally sound. There “positive” news have tended to be on the longer term trend since the GFC. There has been very little positive shocks which say brexit is making things significantly better than not brexitIng. Just it hasn’t caused all the damage predicted. That’s not a great economic news story.
So they did a 15 year forecast comparing a detailed analysis of a scenario (Brexit), against no analysis of the alternative (remain)?
If I hold out both my hands, one open with 5 coins in, and the other closed, a)how many coins have i got in my closed hand?, and b) what's the difference between the two?, would you be able to tell me?"
Sounds a bit like brexit 5 coins is what we have and the closed hand is all guesswork! A nice simple example which everyone can understand - you should apply to be the PM's spokesperson as she clearly has problems explaining the status quo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"The trouble with the original treasury forecast is it was measured as a difference to staying in, without saying what staying in would look like.
So there’s no way of testing it’s predictions against reality.
For example, it predicted a drop of gdp of 3% compared to staying in. But did staying in assume a drop, a plateau or a rise ?
We generallly track consistently with Germany gdp (from entering Europe in the 70s til today we have just over doubled our gdp per capital with Germany only 3% ish behind. Pretty close.)
Since the vote there gdp has gone up ish 0.2 % per Q. Ours down by about the same. Given we’re ar something like 0.3% per Q if external stuff has bouyed GDP by 0.2 then without it we’d be tracking pretty close to nil growth. And that isn’t a million miles away from recession.
For me, the more worrying part about all the forecast is the meta view which is negative. There’s only one view I know of which is Mindord. And he’s notorious for self referencing and not seeking peer review.
If there was more positive views we could have a good choice of debate here. But the quality of argument tends to be *you predicted thunder. It only rained. Your forecasts are crap* while gleefully asking to believe their bones when they say it will be sunny.
Many of the forecasts have been directionally sound. There “positive” news have tended to be on the longer term trend since the GFC. There has been very little positive shocks which say brexit is making things significantly better than not brexitIng. Just it hasn’t caused all the damage predicted. That’s not a great economic news story.
So they did a 15 year forecast comparing a detailed analysis of a scenario (Brexit), against no analysis of the alternative (remain)?
If I hold out both my hands, one open with 5 coins in, and the other closed, a)how many coins have i got in my closed hand?, and b) what's the difference between the two?, would you be able to tell me?"
No-one knows how many coins you have in your closed hand. That is why brexit is such a shambles. We know and knew that you have 5 coins in the open hand. That was the status quo. The closed hand... no-one knew. Some people were told you had 10 coins in that hand. Some people were told that some nasty immigrants were coming to take the 5 coins away from your open hand. Some people looked at it and said 'Given we have no idea what is in the closed hand, and no-one wants to tell us how they plan to work it out, or what they might use the extra coins (if there are any) for, or how they will make up the short fall if indeed there are only 3 coins in the closed hand... we will vote to stick with the status quo'.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought Nigel Farrage was getting back to his old self !
A return to Action soon I hope !
Come on Nigel form the E N P ??
Yup, he was in full lying pointless tosser mode"
Pretty despicable 
in addition to his lies, he was incredibly disruptive, whilst others were talking.
As he's a failed UK politician, from a failed party he, nor any UKIP representative should get the coverage that they are getting, particularly from the BBC. I'm surprised that more people haven't complained to the BBC to reduce their inclusion on Question Time and other shows. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought Nigel Farrage was getting back to his old self !
A return to Action soon I hope !
Come on Nigel form the E N P ??
Yup, he was in full lying pointless tosser mode
Pretty despicable
in addition to his lies, he was incredibly disruptive, whilst others were talking.
As he's a failed UK politician, from a failed party he, nor any UKIP representative should get the coverage that they are getting, particularly from the BBC. I'm surprised that more people haven't complained to the BBC to reduce their inclusion on Question Time and other shows. "
Where was Diane Abbott then? She had the opportunity to appear on Question Time and had been listed to appear on the programme in Blackpool but she either couldn't be arsed to turn up or she bottled it and shit her pants because she's afraid to debate Farage head to head on air. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The trouble with the original treasury forecast is it was measured as a difference to staying in, without saying what staying in would look like.
So there’s no way of testing it’s predictions against reality.
For example, it predicted a drop of gdp of 3% compared to staying in. But did staying in assume a drop, a plateau or a rise ?
We generallly track consistently with Germany gdp (from entering Europe in the 70s til today we have just over doubled our gdp per capital with Germany only 3% ish behind. Pretty close.)
Since the vote there gdp has gone up ish 0.2 % per Q. Ours down by about the same. Given we’re ar something like 0.3% per Q if external stuff has bouyed GDP by 0.2 then without it we’d be tracking pretty close to nil growth. And that isn’t a million miles away from recession.
For me, the more worrying part about all the forecast is the meta view which is negative. There’s only one view I know of which is Mindord. And he’s notorious for self referencing and not seeking peer review.
If there was more positive views we could have a good choice of debate here. But the quality of argument tends to be *you predicted thunder. It only rained. Your forecasts are crap* while gleefully asking to believe their bones when they say it will be sunny.
Many of the forecasts have been directionally sound. There “positive” news have tended to be on the longer term trend since the GFC. There has been very little positive shocks which say brexit is making things significantly better than not brexitIng. Just it hasn’t caused all the damage predicted. That’s not a great economic news story.
So they did a 15 year forecast comparing a detailed analysis of a scenario (Brexit), against no analysis of the alternative (remain)?
If I hold out both my hands, one open with 5 coins in, and the other closed, a)how many coins have i got in my closed hand?, and b) what's the difference between the two?, would you be able to tell me?"
Actually they did a 15 year forecast of several leave scenarios. Single market/EFTA, limited trade deal and no trade deal. The baseline is the status quo. Being in the EU.
15 years is a long time and it's a difficult thing to get correct, but ranking the magnitude of difference between best and worst is reasonable.
Of course the Leave supporters within government are saying that all of the work is rubbish and biased. So that gives license to ignore any contrary information in the future, not just Brexit.
Don't trust the civil service. Don't trust economists. Don't trust scientists. Trust the politicians. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"The trouble with the original treasury forecast is it was measured as a difference to staying in, without saying what staying in would look like.
So there’s no way of testing it’s predictions against reality.
For example, it predicted a drop of gdp of 3% compared to staying in. But did staying in assume a drop, a plateau or a rise ?
We generallly track consistently with Germany gdp (from entering Europe in the 70s til today we have just over doubled our gdp per capital with Germany only 3% ish behind. Pretty close.)
Since the vote there gdp has gone up ish 0.2 % per Q. Ours down by about the same. Given we’re ar something like 0.3% per Q if external stuff has bouyed GDP by 0.2 then without it we’d be tracking pretty close to nil growth. And that isn’t a million miles away from recession.
For me, the more worrying part about all the forecast is the meta view which is negative. There’s only one view I know of which is Mindord. And he’s notorious for self referencing and not seeking peer review.
If there was more positive views we could have a good choice of debate here. But the quality of argument tends to be *you predicted thunder. It only rained. Your forecasts are crap* while gleefully asking to believe their bones when they say it will be sunny.
Many of the forecasts have been directionally sound. There “positive” news have tended to be on the longer term trend since the GFC. There has been very little positive shocks which say brexit is making things significantly better than not brexitIng. Just it hasn’t caused all the damage predicted. That’s not a great economic news story.
So they did a 15 year forecast comparing a detailed analysis of a scenario (Brexit), against no analysis of the alternative (remain)?
If I hold out both my hands, one open with 5 coins in, and the other closed, a)how many coins have i got in my closed hand?, and b) what's the difference between the two?, would you be able to tell me?
Actually they did a 15 year forecast of several leave scenarios. Single market/EFTA, limited trade deal and no trade deal. The baseline is the status quo. Being in the EU.
15 years is a long time and it's a difficult thing to get correct, but ranking the magnitude of difference between best and worst is reasonable.
Of course the Leave supporters within government are saying that all of the work is rubbish and biased. So that gives license to ignore any contrary information in the future, not just Brexit.
Don't trust the civil service. Don't trust economists. Don't trust scientists. Trust the politicians."
And what exactly is the 'status quo' over the next 15 years? Where is that forecast?
What proportion of trade with the EU does the status quo forecast for the next 15 years say?
The economic 'experts' can't even get the next 6 months right, and yet you believe them over the next 15 years? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The trouble with the original treasury forecast is it was measured as a difference to staying in, without saying what staying in would look like.
So there’s no way of testing it’s predictions against reality.
For example, it predicted a drop of gdp of 3% compared to staying in. But did staying in assume a drop, a plateau or a rise ?
We generallly track consistently with Germany gdp (from entering Europe in the 70s til today we have just over doubled our gdp per capital with Germany only 3% ish behind. Pretty close.)
Since the vote there gdp has gone up ish 0.2 % per Q. Ours down by about the same. Given we’re ar something like 0.3% per Q if external stuff has bouyed GDP by 0.2 then without it we’d be tracking pretty close to nil growth. And that isn’t a million miles away from recession.
For me, the more worrying part about all the forecast is the meta view which is negative. There’s only one view I know of which is Mindord. And he’s notorious for self referencing and not seeking peer review.
If there was more positive views we could have a good choice of debate here. But the quality of argument tends to be *you predicted thunder. It only rained. Your forecasts are crap* while gleefully asking to believe their bones when they say it will be sunny.
Many of the forecasts have been directionally sound. There “positive” news have tended to be on the longer term trend since the GFC. There has been very little positive shocks which say brexit is making things significantly better than not brexitIng. Just it hasn’t caused all the damage predicted. That’s not a great economic news story.
So they did a 15 year forecast comparing a detailed analysis of a scenario (Brexit), against no analysis of the alternative (remain)?
If I hold out both my hands, one open with 5 coins in, and the other closed, a)how many coins have i got in my closed hand?, and b) what's the difference between the two?, would you be able to tell me?
Actually they did a 15 year forecast of several leave scenarios. Single market/EFTA, limited trade deal and no trade deal. The baseline is the status quo. Being in the EU.
15 years is a long time and it's a difficult thing to get correct, but ranking the magnitude of difference between best and worst is reasonable.
Of course the Leave supporters within government are saying that all of the work is rubbish and biased. So that gives license to ignore any contrary information in the future, not just Brexit.
Don't trust the civil service. Don't trust economists. Don't trust scientists. Trust the politicians.
And what exactly is the 'status quo' over the next 15 years? Where is that forecast?
What proportion of trade with the EU does the status quo forecast for the next 15 years say?
The economic 'experts' can't even get the next 6 months right, and yet you believe them over the next 15 years?"
I'm not sure that you've read or understood anything here.
The various scenarios are relative to how the the economy would have performed if we were to remain in the EU. RELATIVE.
So, if in 5 years the status quo would have lead to 2% GDP growth, every other Brexit option would be worse than that figure by between 2-8%. Of in 5 years the status quo would have lead to 2% GDP contraction, every other Brexit option would still be worse than that figure by between 2-8%.
Got it?
I also stated as clearly as I could that the absolute numbers would not be reliable. However, if the outcome is better or worse and the ranking of how good or bad they are probably would be.
Got it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The trouble with the original treasury forecast is it was measured as a difference to staying in, without saying what staying in would look like.
So there’s no way of testing it’s predictions against reality.
For example, it predicted a drop of gdp of 3% compared to staying in. But did staying in assume a drop, a plateau or a rise ?
We generallly track consistently with Germany gdp (from entering Europe in the 70s til today we have just over doubled our gdp per capital with Germany only 3% ish behind. Pretty close.)
Since the vote there gdp has gone up ish 0.2 % per Q. Ours down by about the same. Given we’re ar something like 0.3% per Q if external stuff has bouyed GDP by 0.2 then without it we’d be tracking pretty close to nil growth. And that isn’t a million miles away from recession.
For me, the more worrying part about all the forecast is the meta view which is negative. There’s only one view I know of which is Mindord. And he’s notorious for self referencing and not seeking peer review.
If there was more positive views we could have a good choice of debate here. But the quality of argument tends to be *you predicted thunder. It only rained. Your forecasts are crap* while gleefully asking to believe their bones when they say it will be sunny.
Many of the forecasts have been directionally sound. There “positive” news have tended to be on the longer term trend since the GFC. There has been very little positive shocks which say brexit is making things significantly better than not brexitIng. Just it hasn’t caused all the damage predicted. That’s not a great economic news story.
So they did a 15 year forecast comparing a detailed analysis of a scenario (Brexit), against no analysis of the alternative (remain)?
If I hold out both my hands, one open with 5 coins in, and the other closed, a)how many coins have i got in my closed hand?, and b) what's the difference between the two?, would you be able to tell me?
Actually they did a 15 year forecast of several leave scenarios. Single market/EFTA, limited trade deal and no trade deal. The baseline is the status quo. Being in the EU.
15 years is a long time and it's a difficult thing to get correct, but ranking the magnitude of difference between best and worst is reasonable.
Of course the Leave supporters within government are saying that all of the work is rubbish and biased. So that gives license to ignore any contrary information in the future, not just Brexit.
Don't trust the civil service. Don't trust economists. Don't trust scientists. Trust the politicians.
And what exactly is the 'status quo' over the next 15 years? Where is that forecast?
What proportion of trade with the EU does the status quo forecast for the next 15 years say?
The economic 'experts' can't even get the next 6 months right, and yet you believe them over the next 15 years?"
You are also bringing up the nonsense of proportions of exports to the EU vs the rest of the world.
The amount that we are selling to the EU has not been falling. The amount that we have been seeking to rowt has increased. The pie is getting bigger. Hence the percentage of sales to the EU has gone down.
Got it?
It is currently as easy to sell to the EU as to somewhere in the UK. There is no logic in doing anything to make sales to the EU harder.
Do you disagree?
Let me put it another way; you have a business based in Nottingham and sell all of your product there. Your sales to Birmingham increase. Do you reduce sales to Nottingham to increase your Birmingham sales? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"The trouble with the original treasury forecast is it was measured as a difference to staying in, without saying what staying in would look like.
So there’s no way of testing it’s predictions against reality.
For example, it predicted a drop of gdp of 3% compared to staying in. But did staying in assume a drop, a plateau or a rise ?
We generallly track consistently with Germany gdp (from entering Europe in the 70s til today we have just over doubled our gdp per capital with Germany only 3% ish behind. Pretty close.)
Since the vote there gdp has gone up ish 0.2 % per Q. Ours down by about the same. Given we’re ar something like 0.3% per Q if external stuff has bouyed GDP by 0.2 then without it we’d be tracking pretty close to nil growth. And that isn’t a million miles away from recession.
For me, the more worrying part about all the forecast is the meta view which is negative. There’s only one view I know of which is Mindord. And he’s notorious for self referencing and not seeking peer review.
If there was more positive views we could have a good choice of debate here. But the quality of argument tends to be *you predicted thunder. It only rained. Your forecasts are crap* while gleefully asking to believe their bones when they say it will be sunny.
Many of the forecasts have been directionally sound. There “positive” news have tended to be on the longer term trend since the GFC. There has been very little positive shocks which say brexit is making things significantly better than not brexitIng. Just it hasn’t caused all the damage predicted. That’s not a great economic news story.
So they did a 15 year forecast comparing a detailed analysis of a scenario (Brexit), against no analysis of the alternative (remain)?
If I hold out both my hands, one open with 5 coins in, and the other closed, a)how many coins have i got in my closed hand?, and b) what's the difference between the two?, would you be able to tell me?
Actually they did a 15 year forecast of several leave scenarios. Single market/EFTA, limited trade deal and no trade deal. The baseline is the status quo. Being in the EU.
15 years is a long time and it's a difficult thing to get correct, but ranking the magnitude of difference between best and worst is reasonable.
Of course the Leave supporters within government are saying that all of the work is rubbish and biased. So that gives license to ignore any contrary information in the future, not just Brexit.
Don't trust the civil service. Don't trust economists. Don't trust scientists. Trust the politicians.
And what exactly is the 'status quo' over the next 15 years? Where is that forecast?
What proportion of trade with the EU does the status quo forecast for the next 15 years say?
The economic 'experts' can't even get the next 6 months right, and yet you believe them over the next 15 years?
I'm not sure that you've read or understood anything here.
The various scenarios are relative to how the the economy would have performed if we were to remain in the EU. RELATIVE.
So, if in 5 years the status quo would have lead to 2% GDP growth, every other Brexit option would be worse than that figure by between 2-8%. Of in 5 years the status quo would have lead to 2% GDP contraction, every other Brexit option would still be worse than that figure by between 2-8%.
Got it?
I also stated as clearly as I could that the absolute numbers would not be reliable. However, if the outcome is better or worse and the ranking of how good or bad they are probably would be.
Got it?"
And what is the 'status Quo gdp growth predicted to be for us in the EU over the next 15 years? Do you know? If not, how can you compare it against anything? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"
Let me put it another way; you have a business based in Nottingham and sell all of your product there. Your sales to Birmingham increase. Do you reduce sales to Nottingham to increase your Birmingham sales?"
I run my own company.a few years ago, about 70% of my business was with one particular company, fairly local to my business. They thought they had me by the short and curlies, and completely dictated everything.
I went out and got business elsewhere, and now don't deal with that company.
My business is now in a much healthier position.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"
Let me put it another way; you have a business based in Nottingham and sell all of your product there. Your sales to Birmingham increase. Do you reduce sales to Nottingham to increase your Birmingham sales?
I run my own company.a few years ago, about 70% of my business was with one particular company, fairly local to my business. They thought they had me by the short and curlies, and completely dictated everything.
I went out and got business elsewhere, and now don't deal with that company.
My business is now in a much healthier position...."
We are not talking about a single company in our simile. We are talking about every company in our home city. It's like deciding to use a delivery company that may reduce costs to some new contracts that we may, or may not, get many miles away but will definitely cost much more locally.
You do understand that we can increase our trade with anywhere in the world right now don't you?
Please explain how Germany and France manages to conduct more trade with China, India and Brazil than we do despite being within the EU? Why will we suddenly start over performing when we shrink our domestic market just before a new financial crash hits? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is on tonight  ."
... aka the 'chris grailing makes the case for remain over the control of our borders issue' show pmsl ... what a bumbling idiot of a cock womble! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
