BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
It's maybe, just maybe, possible some of it was said to wind you up....
0 -
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.rjsterry said:
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.mr_goo said:
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.pinno said:
That part of La Manche is quite wide. Why not sail round?slowbike said:
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.bompington said:
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.pinno said:
Not duct tape the biro to your glasses?1darkhairedlord said:If you hold a biro horizontally at arms length, it would more than cover them.
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.
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.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?Stevo_666 said:
Different order of magnitude.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!
0 -
You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0
-
as a non-tribal Tory I am appalled.rick_chasey said:
Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?Stevo_666 said:
Different order of magnitude.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!
This lot are neither conservative or pro-union and should leave to set up their own party0 -
What's wrong with it? There's a reason a lot of Filipino health professionals voted for Brexit.longshot said:You can't make it up:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50338073
I am far more interested to know the position on spouse visas though.0 -
Are you going to become a temporary Lib Dem then?surrey_commuter said:
as a non-tribal Tory I am appalled.rick_chasey said:
Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?Stevo_666 said:
Different order of magnitude.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!
This lot are neither conservative or pro-union and should leave to set up their own party0 -
yesTheBlueBean said:
Are you going to become a temporary Lib Dem then?surrey_commuter said:
as a non-tribal Tory I am appalled.rick_chasey said:
Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?Stevo_666 said:
Different order of magnitude.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!
This lot are neither conservative or pro-union and should leave to set up their own party0 -
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 coalition0 -
Seriously, how can anyone vote for this clown?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?
He's someone i wouldn't trust alone with my sister let alone trust with the whole country.0 -
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"?0
-
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.0 -
Cr4p choice of 3. No better than the Cr4ppy choice of 2 they had in US.kingstonian 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.
All trying to be populist.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
He's someone I wouldn't trust alone with your brother ... let alone your sister !elbowloh said:
Seriously, how can anyone vote for this clown?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?
He's someone i wouldn't trust alone with my sister let alone trust with the whole country.0 -
I'm weighing it up against the only possible competition in this election (Labour) and so far I prefer the Javid proposals.rick_chasey said:
Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?Stevo_666 said:
Different order of magnitude.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!
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In which case vote for the populist who best represents your interests...that's what I'm doing.mr_goo said:
Cr4p choice of 3. No better than the Cr4ppy choice of 2 they had in US.kingstonian 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.
All trying to be populist."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The whingers are throwing their toys out of the pram today
You have done all you can to subvert democracy and are now your views are rightly being sidelined. Your actions have consequences!0 -
Should focus more on your constituency persuasion in that case.Stevo_666 said:
I'm weighing it up against the only possible competition in this election (Labour) and so far I prefer the Javid proposals.rick_chasey said:
Given what you've argued on here for more than half a decade, you can't be happy with Javid's proposal, surely?Stevo_666 said:
Different order of magnitude.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!
0 -
None of them then.Stevo_666 said:
In which case vote for the populist who best represents your interests...that's what I'm doing.mr_goo said:
Cr4p choice of 3. No better than the Cr4ppy choice of 2 they had in US.kingstonian 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.
All trying to be populist.
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.0 -
https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2019/11/resilience-and-selection.htmlIf 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.0 -
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said: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.0 -
Rick has quoted this bloke before and he clearly has a bit of an agenda.surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said: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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think you'll find that all we have done is, in itself, democracy in action.coopster_the_1st said:The whingers are throwing their toys out of the pram today
You have done all you can to subvert democracy and are now your views are rightly being sidelined. Your actions have consequences!0 -
You're such a £420.80 in the swearbox.coopster_the_1st said:The whingers are throwing their toys out of the pram today
You have done all you can to subvert democracy and are now your views are rightly being sidelined. Your actions have consequences!You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
I don't really want PM Corbyn, but it would be funny to hear the reactions.coopster_the_1st said:The whingers are throwing their toys out of the pram today
You have done all you can to subvert democracy and are now your views are rightly being sidelined. Your actions have consequences!1 -
Would almost be worth it for botster's reaction alone...kingstongraham said:
I don't really want PM Corbyn, but it would be funny to hear the reactions.
0 -
Farage being called out as a coward for refusing to stand for election.0
-
surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said: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.
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.0 -
He's in the same boat as Sturgeon now.darkhairedlord said:Farage being called out as a coward for refusing to stand for election.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
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?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said: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.
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0