The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[RickBFA]

May as well get all the latest economic news on here........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37315866

I'm sure the doom and gloom merchants will be all over it like a rash when/if the situation worsens.

You do realise we are still in the EU?

What I was clumsily trying to demonstrate is that the experts/economists got their forecasts about the effects in immediate aftermath of the brexit vote on the economy totally wrong.

They forecast negative growth for Q3 and us heading rapidly into recession.

Pretty sure Tighty posted some links in last 6 months, I can look.

We've understandably seen a lot of forecasts about the economy on here, I think its useful to post information on actual performance (no one mentioned the actual trade figures for example on here) for some balance.

You haven't demonstrated that though.  A decrease in trade gap would be a very likely result of a 10% drop in currency.  And a 10% drop in currency was a pretty likely result. I am fairly sure it was the number I used when Dave Shoelace(?) asked about how his income would be affected by brexit.  So I don't think you have demonstrated anything that was unexpected.

The third quarter growth figures aren't out yet, and they will be interesting.  Whilst "economists" aren't a uniform clump that can easily be covered by "they", it is safe to say most forecast a slowdown of various sizes. 

I don't think the any economist forecast the actual figures we've actually seen in the short term.

I used the forecast posted on here by Tighty two weeks after Brexit vote to explain what I meant (see last page).

Its not unfair to say the accepted view was an immediate slowdown after Brexit vote with reduced demand/loss of confidence/consumers reigning in spending/companies being more cautious about recruitment etc etc.

So far that is not borne out by the actual published numbers.

The employment figures today are another example of that.

[MintTrav]

The new PM's craziest appointment wasn't Boris or Fox, as you might assume. It was putting right-wing maniac Priti Patel in charge of the Department for International Development. Maybe May doesn't like her and has given her what must be Priti's nightmare appointment. In short, Patel isn't keen on aid being given to poor people and has previously called for the DfID to be abolished.

Priti is stuck with the 0.7% commitment (and with having to defend it, lol). The appointment is already going as you would expect, with Priti scaring aid agencies to death by saying that spending will be based on core Tory principles. Apparently, this means money being moved from direct aid to trade development, job creation in countries that are migration sources (I kid you not - officials have been told to focus on such countries) and possibly some security (ie military). She has also made the strange statement that she wants international aid to perform in the interests of British taxpayers. Bizarrely, she has made the Campaign Director of the Taxpayers' Alliance her special advisor. This character has a history of attacks on foreign aid but, according to a spokesman, his numerous previous statements "do not necessarily reflect his current personal view". Yes they really did say that.

Theresa May's joke has surely gone far enough. She still has time to get rid of the crazy one before she causes real damage with her stupid ideology.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/sep/14/uk-ngos-raise-concerns-about-priti-patels-new-approach-to-foreign-aid

[TightEnd]

"Dismay and anger among Jeremy's supporters in Westminster. It is pound shop Malcolm Tucker stuff".

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/jeremy-corbyn-ally-condemns-list-abusive-labour-mps


Corbyn hammered May at PMQs yesterday then on Sky last night Smith apparently hammered Corbyn in the hustings, not that it will make any difference to the result. a few hours can be a long time in politics

[TightEnd]

Nicola Sturgeon should block Brexit if Scotland has the power, Alex Salmond says http://bit.ly/2cI8Pyj

[TightEnd]

After boundary changes, Labour needs a 1997-style swing for a majority of one

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/09/after-boundary-changes-labour-needs-1997-style-swing-majority-one

[TightEnd]

this is a fun one to try to make sense of

Click to see full-size image.

[TightEnd]

Evening Standard graphic on its latest TMay versus Corbyn ratings. Don't look good for red team.

[TightEnd]

some Hinkley point stuff

 the UK's first new nuclear plant for 20 years everything you need to know:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/15/hinkley-point-c-guide-uk-first-new-nuclear-plant-for-20-years?CMP=twt_gu

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

[DropTheHammer]

What's everyone think of the grammar school thing btw? Can't make my mind up on that one.

I am all for selection by intelligence but feel that the system must be changed so that middle class kids cannot be tutored to pass it. This is grossly unfair on the children whose parents can't afford all this tutoring, as kids with less ability gain better marks in the test.

There also needs to be ample opportunity for children who have an off day for the test, or progress really quickly/well at their non-selective school, to move into a grammar school.

[neeko]

some Hinkley point stuff

 the UK's first new nuclear plant for 20 years everything you need to know:

Click to see full-size image.

What were they thinking when they drew this?

Start with numbers that add to 100% then add 7% to it. NOOOO. That is not  how percentages work, idiots.

Show the generating numbers for this year and then add something that won't be built for 9 years, under a graphic that shows loads of capacity being retired.

I doubt there will be that much coal either.

Grrrrrrr. </and breath>

[Jon MW]

What's everyone think of the grammar school thing btw? Can't make my mind up on that one.

I am all for selection by intelligence but feel that the system must be changed so that middle class kids cannot be tutored to pass it. This is grossly unfair on the children whose parents can't afford all this tutoring, as kids with less ability gain better marks in the test.

There also needs to be ample opportunity for children who have an off day for the test, or progress really quickly/well at their non-selective school, to move into a grammar school.

If you randomly take an IQ test (which is basically what the 11+ is) then it gives a high correlation to exam results.  That would mean there's no need to take into account a bad day or to re-test at a later stage - the problem being is that their is no test that you can't tutor for and so in practice there's no way you can actually make this work.

The best that can be said for selective schools is that they make no difference. There are some reports that suggest that grammar schools favour the rich and middle class - but that kind of ignores that the rich and middle class will do better in any type of education system. The more realistic conclusion is that selective or comprehensive (or almost any other education system) doesn't influence society - it only reflects it.

Grammar schools won't do any harm (and don't do any harm where they're still prevalent); but by concentrating the education argument on that then it's pulling away the argument from anything that might actually improve things. Improving all the state schools rather than tinkering with something which will make virtually no difference would be much more the preferred option.

[TightEnd]

did anyone see campbell v mcdonnell on Question time last ngiht?

an all time great bust up


Leaked Corbyn abuse list shows the unbridgeable gulf in Labour http://tinyurl.com/znfpaxg 

[DaveShoelace]

did anyone see campbell v mcdonnell on Question time last ngiht?

an all time great bust up


Leaked Corbyn abuse list shows the unbridgeable gulf in Labour http://tinyurl.com/znfpaxg 

http://order-order.com/2016/09/15/mcdonnell-v-nauseating-campbell/

[DaveShoelace]

What odds do we think there will be on a Labour split then?

[Woodsey]

What's everyone think of the grammar school thing btw? Can't make my mind up on that one.

I am all for selection by intelligence but feel that the system must be changed so that middle class kids cannot be tutored to pass it. This is grossly unfair on the children whose parents can't afford all this tutoring, as kids with less ability gain better marks in the test.

There also needs to be ample opportunity for children who have an off day for the test, or progress really quickly/well at their non-selective school, to move into a grammar school.

Life isn't fair mate.

My parents are as working class as it gets, they paid whatever they could afford to make sure I and my siblings got a superb education because they wanted the best for their kids.

I really don't get what is wrong with that to be honest, surely any parent would want that?