Boris as PM

ugo.santalucia

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also the reports I have seen from the logistics sector estimate that the period of disruption would have the order of magnitude you mention - not more than a year as Slowmart thinks.

I think he refers to an inevitable recession, which might well last in excess of 12 months... when you grow 1.5% in the best scenario, it's easy go negative...

slowmart

time will tell guys and I hope we don’t have to find out who is right on this point.

ugo.santalucia

Slowmart wrote:

time will tell guys and I hope we don’t have to find out who is right on this point.

To be honest I don't know if a no deal Brexit is worse than having an extreme xenophobe and racist right wing rising and possibly getting into government, as it's happening in other European countries.

A recession is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

slowmart

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

time will tell guys and I hope we don’t have to find out who is right on this point.

To be honest I don't know if a no deal Brexit is worse than having an extreme xenophobe and racist right wing rising and possibly getting into government, as it's happening in other European countries.

A recession is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

“Extreme xenophobe and racist right wing”

Is that a tongue in cheek comment given the make up of the current cabinet?

And before we can determine if a recession is a price worth paying , let’s understand the cost and impact of that recession in terms of jobs and tax lost and that’s not to mention the skills shortages in the NHS.

cycleclinic

my big issue with boris he is attaching so many hope and aspiration to brexit. When all the things he is talking about can be acheieved if they are possible with in the EU. It was predicted before bextit and germany acceptance of 1m migrants that [opulation deline in germany would have the U>K on par with the german ecomony by 2030. Not sure how brexit will aid that change which has probably been delayed anyway.

as fpr trade deals i am not sure trade can threble with the us as trump claims with a trade deal. may 5% increase. Our markets are pretty open to each other as it is and the reason why we dont buy american cars and beef is whe dont want them. Also new trade deal term is used by people without explaining what they hope a new deal would achieve or how for example a trade deal with brazil would be better than the deal the EU has with brazil.

The real risk of brexit is an accelerated errosion of global influence. We already dont spend enough on defence and that harms global influence but we look like a country without a rudder led by people who have no idea what they are doing. the effects of that is to erode our soft power which is conciderable but once that eroded you dont get it back. That in turns effects how oeople across the world feel about britiain or england a wales as it might become and there ability to invest and set up shop here. We seem set on a path of mediocractity and in the jossling for the steering wheel we find it come off and and the children in power have stuck to the dash board and they seem to be pretending they are steering the ship. I am not sure what anyone can do about this as the split is cultural and no based on reason but how we feel about being british, EU our own place in society and our reltionship with those in power.
No ammount of vim and optimism can hide the incompetance we have in government. Priti Patel for example want to bring back hanging and she is home secretary. Even Russia does not have offical execuations.

That sort of split means we will probably have people like boris in power for some time and then it switches to the leftist populist. Populism has arrived and its not going away.

And yet everyone on the remain side is deperatley trying to point out that there will be a recession. most people shug at that as we get one every ten years anyway. The whole thing plays into boris hands and yet he is doomed as PM. The conservatives are not likely to get a majority at the next election unless something changes in the way we feel to those in power.
So I have no idea how bad a no deal brexit could be. It wont settle anything neither will staying in, unless we start to relaise what the root cause of our malaise is - governance and that not easily fixed either.

rjsterry

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

time will tell guys and I hope we don’t have to find out who is right on this point.

To be honest I don't know if a no deal Brexit is worse than having an extreme xenophobe and racist right wing rising and possibly getting into government, as it's happening in other European countries.

A recession is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

A recession is the perfect environment for growth of the extreme right.

ugo.santalucia

Slowmart wrote:

Is that a tongue in cheek comment given the make up of the current cabinet?
.

You should take notice of what Salvini in Italy says and does, aside from the fact that his party took money from Russia, then you would have a different opinion of what's happening here

slowmart

I don’t see any daylight between Boris and his Cabinet and Salvini, odious self serving cretins the whole lot.

And the Tories aren’t to particular where donations come from, nor the Leave campaign. The Tories happily bend over to receive Russian or Saudi penis at the whiff of cash.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... -extremism


We aren’t better or superior, it’s the same sh1t, different names, that’s all.

cycleclinic

Salvani is far angrier than bojo. Salvini promotes conspiracy theories like vaccination scares. Bojo is not quite there yet. He just believe the truth is flexible but I don't think he is about to suggest stop vaccinating your children.

In fact given bojo thinks that belief is all you need to make something happen can we all believe his constituents will sign a recall petition and he has to face a by election. It only need 10% of the electorate there. That would be funny.

Pross

PBlakeney wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I always bear in mind that the last crisis had zero effects on my finances or lifestyle and only really hit those who were already in trouble (who happen to be Brexit voters, for the most)

While the above may be accurate on a personal level, it is patently untrue nationwide. Lots of people lost jobs through no fault of theirs.

It's a complete load of bollox to be fair. Most companies in my line of work were decimated and many of those who kept their jobs took huge pay cuts. After 3 years with increased outgoings and 10-15% reduced salaries or unemployment lots of people struggled. Of those, the law of averages would suggest around half weren't Brexit voters. Demographics and what I know of most of those I work with would actually suggest than far fewer than half votes for Brexit. Frankly, it's one of the most stupid comments I've read on here for ages.

Stevo_666

Love him or hate him, he seems to have boosted the Tories in the polls:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/27/boris-bounce-lifts-tories-at-expense-of-brexit-party-poll-shows

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Reading through BoJo’s spending and borrowing plans he really should fvck off and join the Labour Party

Well quite. No wonder Hammond resigned in disgust.

Still, his views on immigration seem like an improvement on his predecessor.

Definitely an unexpected left of centre leaning in his early utterances. Maybe he has played a blinder in playing those who voted him in. I'm not sure they were expecting him to go pro immigration!

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Reading through BoJo’s spending and borrowing plans he really should fvck off and join the Labour Party

Well quite. No wonder Hammond resigned in disgust.

Still, his views on immigration seem like an improvement on his predecessor.

Definitely an unexpected left of centre leaning in his early utterances. Maybe he has played a blinder in playing those who voted him in. I'm not sure they were expecting him to go pro immigration!

He has been consistently pro immigration

ugo.santalucia

I don't share all the negativity about Bojo... I think optimism has to be part of the baggage of a PM and frankly May + Hammond were as cheery as a funeral. People's morale matters

If the country will need to borrow more for a few years, then so be it, you can't run a country by just balancing the books, previous governments have done that for a decade and I don't see things being better than they were, including financial rating...

I might be wrong on this, but I don't think there is an example of a successful economy that doesn't have a huge public debt, which says a lot about public debt as an indicator.

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

Jez mon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I don't share all the negativity about Bojo... I think optimism has to be part of the baggage of a PM and frankly May + Hammond were as cheery as a funeral. People's morale matters

If the country will need to borrow more for a few years, then so be it, you can't run a country by just balancing the books, previous governments have done that for a decade and I don't see things being better than they were, including financial rating...

I might be wrong on this, but I don't think there is an example of a successful economy that doesn't have a huge public debt, which says a lot about public debt as an indicator.

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

I think there's a balance to be had between mindless optimism and dreary greyness. People don't appreciate being told that everything is wonderful when the house is on fire.

Our economy is still bumbling along after 2008, and we're about to rip up our trading agreement with what is collectively our biggest trade partner...potentially with no deal, although no one is sure how much no deal means no deal. Because literally having no deal is not feasible.

verylonglegs

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Reading through BoJo’s spending and borrowing plans he really should fvck off and join the Labour Party

Well quite. No wonder Hammond resigned in disgust.

Still, his views on immigration seem like an improvement on his predecessor.

Definitely an unexpected left of centre leaning in his early utterances. Maybe he has played a blinder in playing those who voted him in. I'm not sure they were expecting him to go pro immigration!

He has been consistently pro immigration

I read an article a while ago now that pointed out that the Singapore style economic model that Johnson is in love with is very pro immigration. It seems to have gone unnoticed by the hard right wing of the Tories.

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I always bear in mind that the last crisis had zero effects on my finances or lifestyle and only really hit those who were already in trouble (who happen to be Brexit voters, for the most)

While the above may be accurate on a personal level, it is patently untrue nationwide. Lots of people lost jobs through no fault of theirs.

It's a complete load of bollox to be fair. Most companies in my line of work were decimated and many of those who kept their jobs took huge pay cuts. After 3 years with increased outgoings and 10-15% reduced salaries or unemployment lots of people struggled. Of those, the law of averages would suggest around half weren't Brexit voters. Demographics and what I know of most of those I work with would actually suggest than far fewer than half votes for Brexit. Frankly, it's one of the most stupid comments I've read on here for ages.

Quite.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Love him or hate him, he seems to have boosted the Tories in the polls:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/27/boris-bounce-lifts-tories-at-expense-of-brexit-party-poll-shows

CCHQ must be breathing a sigh of relief. The was an interesting article I read from someone who worked on Gordon Brown's transition to PM. They'd looked at all the previous examples of a PM taking over from another of the same party and realised out that there was likely to be a brief honeymoon period of high popularity and then a slow decline in popularity almost regardless of events. To no surprise, this pattern followed for Brown as well. I wonder how long Johnson's honeymoon will last.

rick_chasey

verylonglegs wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Reading through BoJo’s spending and borrowing plans he really should fvck off and join the Labour Party

Well quite. No wonder Hammond resigned in disgust.

Still, his views on immigration seem like an improvement on his predecessor.

Definitely an unexpected left of centre leaning in his early utterances. Maybe he has played a blinder in playing those who voted him in. I'm not sure they were expecting him to go pro immigration!

He has been consistently pro immigration

I read an article a while ago now that pointed out that the Singapore style economic model that Johnson is in love with is very pro immigration. It seems to have gone unnoticed by the hard right wing of the Tories.

There’s a big cohort of secret tax revolters in the Tory party who will cut taxes for their ilk as much as they can get away with.

The whole swathe of super rich supporting Brexiters tend to come at Brexit from that angle.

They are very happy with their new business secretary who has a personal stake in keeping British overseas territories books opaque, as well as the pair of TaxPayersAlliance bods who have joined the treasury.

They don’t give a stuff about immigration.

rjsterry

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

I think that is more a reflection of how willing people are to lend to those governments.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

I think that is more a reflection of how willing people are to lend to those governments.

Which would suggest that there is a finite amount that any country can borrow. With UK debt at 85% we are about to push it higher to help Boris get elected. Come the next recession it will soar over 100%.

Always worth remembering that we spend £46bn a year on debt interest.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

I think that is more a reflection of how willing people are to lend to those governments.

Which would suggest that there is a finite amount that any country can borrow. With UK debt at 85% we are about to push it higher to help Boris get elected. Come the next recession it will soar over 100%.

Always worth remembering that we spend £46bn a year on debt interest.

That amount being determined mostly by lender confidence in the borrower. This graph is useful for context of government debt to gdp ratios.



Wars are really expensive.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

I think that is more a reflection of how willing people are to lend to those governments.

Which would suggest that there is a finite amount that any country can borrow. With UK debt at 85% we are about to push it higher to help Boris get elected. Come the next recession it will soar over 100%.

Always worth remembering that we spend £46bn a year on debt interest.

Is there any actual significance of the 100% value? Or does it just sound scary and like it should be significant. Japan is racing away at over 200% and yet doesn't seem to have the problems Greece had when it's debt to gdp was going over 100...

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-li ... ebt-to-gdp

I'd argue this list shows little corellation between countries you may argue are "doing well" and debt to gdp.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

I think that is more a reflection of how willing people are to lend to those governments.

Which would suggest that there is a finite amount that any country can borrow. With UK debt at 85% we are about to push it higher to help Boris get elected. Come the next recession it will soar over 100%.

Always worth remembering that we spend £46bn a year on debt interest.

Surely the rates on gilts give a good indication for what the finite amount is?

Pross

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Reading through BoJo’s spending and borrowing plans he really should fvck off and join the Labour Party

Well quite. No wonder Hammond resigned in disgust.

Still, his views on immigration seem like an improvement on his predecessor.

Definitely an unexpected left of centre leaning in his early utterances. Maybe he has played a blinder in playing those who voted him in. I'm not sure they were expecting him to go pro immigration!

He has been consistently pro immigration

He kept it quiet in his leadership campaign thoughts I suspect he knew it wouldn't be popular amongst much of the rank and file where Brexit and immigration are inextricably linked. Then again he kept his opinions on everything other than Brexit quiet during his campaign.

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

I think that is more a reflection of how willing people are to lend to those governments.

Which would suggest that there is a finite amount that any country can borrow. With UK debt at 85% we are about to push it higher to help Boris get elected. Come the next recession it will soar over 100%.

Always worth remembering that we spend £46bn a year on debt interest.

Is there any actual significance of the 100% value? Or does it just sound scary and like it should be significant. Japan is racing away at over 200% and yet doesn't seem to have the problems Greece had when it's debt to gdp was going over 100...

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-li ... ebt-to-gdp

I'd argue this list shows little corellation between countries you may argue are "doing well" and debt to gdp.

100% is purely symbolic. Many think that 125% is the level at which you start harming the economy.

As Rick says Gilt rates are a good indicator. My problem with that is that we have have historically low rates yet are spending £46bn per annum. If gilt rates go back to their long term trend then we could be spending more on debt interest than the NHS.

I truly do not get why nobody else (Pre-Boris Stevo excepted) worries about this.

ugo.santalucia

The time when Italy was at their wealthiest, kind of early 80s, I remember buying bonds was very popular, interest rates were huge, public debt was already an issue back then, but the economy was booming and nobody cared too much...

it's always a balance between under investing for fear of debt and overspending... ultimately, if you borrow to build useful infrastructure, you can't do much wrong... it's certainly a more optimistic outlook than borrowing to buy more prescription drugs, although the latter is always very popular with voters

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

I think that is more a reflection of how willing people are to lend to those governments.

Which would suggest that there is a finite amount that any country can borrow. With UK debt at 85% we are about to push it higher to help Boris get elected. Come the next recession it will soar over 100%.

Always worth remembering that we spend £46bn a year on debt interest.

Is there any actual significance of the 100% value? Or does it just sound scary and like it should be significant. Japan is racing away at over 200% and yet doesn't seem to have the problems Greece had when it's debt to gdp was going over 100...

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-li ... ebt-to-gdp

I'd argue this list shows little corellation between countries you may argue are "doing well" and debt to gdp.

100% is purely symbolic. Many think that 125% is the level at which you start harming the economy.

As Rick says Gilt rates are a good indicator. My problem with that is that we have have historically low rates yet are spending £46bn per annum. If gilt rates go back to their long term trend then we could be spending more on debt interest than the NHS.

I truly do not get why nobody else (Pre-Boris Stevo excepted) worries about this.

Presumably rates are low because lenders are confident the U.K. won’t default.

So why is the debt a problem again?

rick_chasey

So who’s a fan of the war cabinet rhetoric?

Grown men playing soldier.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Among the countries with a low public debt/GDP we have: Afghanistan, Congo, Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh and Myanmar

I think that is more a reflection of how willing people are to lend to those governments.

Which would suggest that there is a finite amount that any country can borrow. With UK debt at 85% we are about to push it higher to help Boris get elected. Come the next recession it will soar over 100%.

Always worth remembering that we spend £46bn a year on debt interest.

Is there any actual significance of the 100% value? Or does it just sound scary and like it should be significant. Japan is racing away at over 200% and yet doesn't seem to have the problems Greece had when it's debt to gdp was going over 100...

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-li ... ebt-to-gdp

I'd argue this list shows little corellation between countries you may argue are "doing well" and debt to gdp.

100% is purely symbolic. Many think that 125% is the level at which you start harming the economy.

As Rick says Gilt rates are a good indicator. My problem with that is that we have have historically low rates yet are spending £46bn per annum. If gilt rates go back to their long term trend then we could be spending more on debt interest than the NHS.

I truly do not get why nobody else (Pre-Boris Stevo excepted) worries about this.

Presumably rates are low because lenders are confident the U.K. won’t default.

So why is the debt a problem again?

The economics of this have already been explained to you at least once before.

So let's try approachimg it from another angle. Why do you think the EU imposes limits on the debt levels that member States can have?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48536954

I'm sure that wouldn't do that unless there was a reason. And after all, the EU are always right - aren't they?