BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1130613071309131113122100

Comments

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,132
    edited November 2019
    It's maybe, just maybe, possible some of it was said to wind you up....



  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    rjsterry said:

    mr_goo said:

    pinno said:

    slowbike said:

    pinno said:

    If you hold a biro horizontally at arms length, it would more than cover them.

    Not duct tape the biro to your glasses?1
    This could be a good compromise solution. If Goo does this, he'll not be able to see the turbines at all, and the rest of us can get on with it.
    There's more than just the view to object against the planning - that area is also used extensively for navigation - windfarms normally have an exclusion zone - I guess (I've not looked) they've included some channels for passing through so effectively drives all the traffic into a narrow channel - which isn't so easy to pass along.You may think it a minor irritation, but in adverse conditions (which some find themselves in) it could become quite serious.
    The English Channel is very busy with traffic - there's no where that won't affect sailors - either professional or leisure - so selecting a suitable site that makes economic sense with the least impact on users is very tricky.
    That part of La Manche is quite wide. Why not sail round?

    I forgot about the cables. The width of cabling for the scheme was as wide as a dual carriageway. At point of landfall they would have then had to make a cutting in the cliffs and dug out for a dusty of approximately 25miles, right through the New Forest.
    There was also the impact on bird migration. The stretch of water concerned is a main route for migratory birds to and from UK.
    Also it would have impacted on the delicate ecology of the seabed.... Seahorses found in this area.

    Seemingly the LibDem supporters on here don't give a 5hit.
    If that's aimed at me - 🙋‍♂️ - I think the ecological and disruption to sailing arguments are much stronger than the supposed harm to tourism. I'm not entirely convinced that that was the primary objection to the scheme, though. Anyway it hasn't happened. Happy to have them appropriately sited in the Thames or Severn Estuaries.
    The actual area sold/leased to EDF/Eneco was quite large. However they decided that they wanted to put them as close to shore as possible. They could have sited them further out and out of site. Like EDF had to do with the offshore farm near (or not near) Mont Saint Michel, France.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,244
    Stevo_666 said:

    elbowloh said:

    Tories accuse Labour of having to break spending rules and increase borrowing in order to fund their investment plans before Sajid Javid brings out spending plans that can only be funded through increased borrowing and the breaking of their own spending rules!

    Different order of magnitude.
    Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • Stevo_666 said:

    elbowloh said:

    Tories accuse Labour of having to break spending rules and increase borrowing in order to fund their investment plans before Sajid Javid brings out spending plans that can only be funded through increased borrowing and the breaking of their own spending rules!

    Different order of magnitude.
    Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?
    as a non-tribal Tory I am appalled.

    This lot are neither conservative or pro-union and should leave to set up their own party
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,511
    longshot said:
    What's wrong with it? There's a reason a lot of Filipino health professionals voted for Brexit.

    I am far more interested to know the position on spouse visas though.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,511

    Stevo_666 said:

    elbowloh said:

    Tories accuse Labour of having to break spending rules and increase borrowing in order to fund their investment plans before Sajid Javid brings out spending plans that can only be funded through increased borrowing and the breaking of their own spending rules!

    Different order of magnitude.
    Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?
    as a non-tribal Tory I am appalled.

    This lot are neither conservative or pro-union and should leave to set up their own party
    Are you going to become a temporary Lib Dem then?
  • Stevo_666 said:

    elbowloh said:

    Tories accuse Labour of having to break spending rules and increase borrowing in order to fund their investment plans before Sajid Javid brings out spending plans that can only be funded through increased borrowing and the breaking of their own spending rules!

    Different order of magnitude.
    Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?
    as a non-tribal Tory I am appalled.

    This lot are neither conservative or pro-union and should leave to set up their own party
    Are you going to become a temporary Lib Dem then?
    yes
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,486
    This is fun.

    Unless of course you run a business that exports across the Irish Sea.



    Is it really him or a drunk lookalike?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078
    rjsterry said:

    This is fun.

    Unless of course you run a business that exports across the Irish Sea.



    Is it really him or a drunk lookalike?
    Seriously, how can anyone vote for this clown?

    He's someone i wouldn't trust alone with my sister let alone trust with the whole country.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078
    Tbh, i'm not a fan of any of our political leaders - Johnson, Corbyn, Swinson. Are we really saying the the country and the rest of the world "this is the best we've got"?
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    elbowloh said:

    Tbh, i'm not a fan of any of our political leaders - Johnson, Corbyn, Swinson. Are we really saying the the country and the rest of the world "this is the best we've got"?


    Agreed, all 3 of them are a sh1tshow. If either party had a credible leader they'd command a punchy majority.
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770

    elbowloh said:

    Tbh, i'm not a fan of any of our political leaders - Johnson, Corbyn, Swinson. Are we really saying the the country and the rest of the world "this is the best we've got"?


    Agreed, all 3 of them are a sh1tshow. If either party had a credible leader they'd command a punchy majority.
    Cr4p choice of 3. No better than the Cr4ppy choice of 2 they had in US.
    All trying to be populist.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    elbowloh said:

    rjsterry said:

    This is fun.

    Unless of course you run a business that exports across the Irish Sea.



    Is it really him or a drunk lookalike?
    Seriously, how can anyone vote for this clown?

    He's someone i wouldn't trust alone with my sister let alone trust with the whole country.
    He's someone I wouldn't trust alone with your brother ... let alone your sister ! :wink:
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,166

    Stevo_666 said:

    elbowloh said:

    Tories accuse Labour of having to break spending rules and increase borrowing in order to fund their investment plans before Sajid Javid brings out spending plans that can only be funded through increased borrowing and the breaking of their own spending rules!

    Different order of magnitude.
    Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?
    I'm weighing it up against the only possible competition in this election (Labour) and so far I prefer the Javid proposals.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,166
    mr_goo said:

    elbowloh said:

    Tbh, i'm not a fan of any of our political leaders - Johnson, Corbyn, Swinson. Are we really saying the the country and the rest of the world "this is the best we've got"?


    Agreed, all 3 of them are a sh1tshow. If either party had a credible leader they'd command a punchy majority.
    Cr4p choice of 3. No better than the Cr4ppy choice of 2 they had in US.
    All trying to be populist.
    In which case vote for the populist who best represents your interests...that's what I'm doing.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • The whingers are throwing their toys out of the pram today :smiley:

    You have done all you can to subvert democracy and are now your views are rightly being sidelined. Your actions have consequences!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,244
    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    elbowloh said:

    Tories accuse Labour of having to break spending rules and increase borrowing in order to fund their investment plans before Sajid Javid brings out spending plans that can only be funded through increased borrowing and the breaking of their own spending rules!

    Different order of magnitude.
    Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?
    I'm weighing it up against the only possible competition in this election (Labour) and so far I prefer the Javid proposals.
    Should focus more on your constituency persuasion in that case.
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Stevo_666 said:

    mr_goo said:

    elbowloh said:

    Tbh, i'm not a fan of any of our political leaders - Johnson, Corbyn, Swinson. Are we really saying the the country and the rest of the world "this is the best we've got"?


    Agreed, all 3 of them are a sh1tshow. If either party had a credible leader they'd command a punchy majority.
    Cr4p choice of 3. No better than the Cr4ppy choice of 2 they had in US.
    All trying to be populist.
    In which case vote for the populist who best represents your interests...that's what I'm doing.
    None of them then.
    I'm waiting for the hustings dates to be released. Always amusing to see my local MP Sir Desmond Swayne. Acts like he's Cicero addressing The Senate. 😅😅
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,244
    edited November 2019
    https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/11/resilience-and-selection.html

    If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”

    All this is silly hyperbole.

    I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.

    Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid

    One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.

    Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.

    There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.

    Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
  • https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/11/resilience-and-selection.html

    If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”

    All this is silly hyperbole.

    I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.

    Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid

    One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.

    Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.

    There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.

    Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
    so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical rates
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,166

    https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/11/resilience-and-selection.html

    If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”

    All this is silly hyperbole.

    I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.

    Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid

    One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.

    Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.

    There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.

    Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
    so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical rates
    Rick has quoted this bloke before and he clearly has a bit of an agenda.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078

    The whingers are throwing their toys out of the pram today :smiley:

    You have done all you can to subvert democracy and are now your views are rightly being sidelined. Your actions have consequences!

    I think you'll find that all we have done is, in itself, democracy in action.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    edited November 2019

    The whingers are throwing their toys out of the pram today :smiley:

    You have done all you can to subvert democracy and are now your views are rightly being sidelined. Your actions have consequences!

    You're such a £420.80 in the swearbox.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,132
    edited November 2019

    The whingers are throwing their toys out of the pram today :smiley:

    You have done all you can to subvert democracy and are now your views are rightly being sidelined. Your actions have consequences!

    I don't really want PM Corbyn, but it would be funny to hear the reactions.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    edited November 2019


    I don't really want PM Corbyn, but it would be funny to hear the reactions.

    Would almost be worth it for botster's reaction alone...

  • Farage being called out as a coward for refusing to stand for election.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,244

    https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/11/resilience-and-selection.html

    If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”

    All this is silly hyperbole.

    I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.

    Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid

    One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.

    Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.

    There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.

    Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
    so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical rates

    Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.

    The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,166

    Farage being called out as a coward for refusing to stand for election.

    He's in the same boat as Sturgeon now.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,166

    https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/11/resilience-and-selection.html

    If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”

    All this is silly hyperbole.

    I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.

    Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid

    One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.

    Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.

    There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.

    Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
    so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical rates

    Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.

    The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
    There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]