FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why is the UK struggling more than any other big country?
Why is the UK struggling more than any other big country?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Brexit in its many parts, including the shocking impact on trade, exodus of young europeans and the job vacuum it left behind. Inflated house prices, mismanagement of the economy, low wages and no market faith in our government." They knew what they were voting for. Apparently. Although arch leaver Lord Wolfson had a moment of clarity this week then realising 'hold on brexit is a huge steaming turd'. I'm paraphrasing here, of course. | |||
| |||
"Brexit in its many parts, including the shocking impact on trade, exodus of young europeans and the job vacuum it left behind. Inflated house prices, mismanagement of the economy, low wages and no market faith in our government. They knew what they were voting for. Apparently. Although arch leaver Lord Wolfson had a moment of clarity this week then realising 'hold on brexit is a huge steaming turd'. I'm paraphrasing here, of course. " I think that should be a quote  | |||
| |||
"perhaps it is because we are a small country ? France is 3 times the size of the UK with a similar sized population. We have expensive houses overcrowded infrastructure & poor government. " I think it is more than that. The UK was at the forefront of the industrial revolution. Our infrastructure was world class back then. But we failed to upgrade and move with the times. Our societal nostalgia for the great Victorian era (and time of Empire) stretches into all manner of things, including our rail and road network. Our NIMBY attitude means we want to maintain our green and pleasant land (ie conserve how it looks to continue to resemble the era when Britain was indeed Great. Another example is our housing stock and ongoing obsession with Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian styles. We are generally a backward looking country (through rose coloured spectacles) due to our greatness being a thing of the past. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you." Believe something else as opposed to what? That article says the energy crisis alongside labour shortages. What else could there possibly be? | |||
| |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing." Insults - check Confusion - check Missing the point - check Not discussing the topic - check Why do you think "remoaners", IE people who voted not to make the country shitter, like "bashing Britain"? | |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing. Insults - check Confusion - check Missing the point - check Not discussing the topic - check Why do you think "remoaners", IE people who voted not to make the country shitter, like "bashing Britain"?" Ah yes I can see that the article did mention Brexit. That's quite enough for you to filter out everything else. | |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing. Insults - check Confusion - check Missing the point - check Not discussing the topic - check Why do you think "remoaners", IE people who voted not to make the country shitter, like "bashing Britain"? Ah yes I can see that the article did mention Brexit. That's quite enough for you to filter out everything else. " Missed out the customary insult. But still, the rest is there. | |||
"I do not get involved in brexit debates or discussions as a rule but one major difference to the UK compared to any other country is we have recently left the European Union. " Brexit debates are the most fun though! | |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing. Insults - check Confusion - check Missing the point - check Not discussing the topic - check Why do you think "remoaners", IE people who voted not to make the country shitter, like "bashing Britain"? Ah yes I can see that the article did mention Brexit. That's quite enough for you to filter out everything else. Missed out the customary insult. But still, the rest is there. " As a flat earth eco loon who wants us all to live in caves, I'm kind of pleased that you are now taking some vague interest in finance and business and are concerned about the state of the economy. Though I'm not sure the BBC is a good place to look for information, unless you are five years old. | |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing. Insults - check Confusion - check Missing the point - check Not discussing the topic - check Why do you think "remoaners", IE people who voted not to make the country shitter, like "bashing Britain"? Ah yes I can see that the article did mention Brexit. That's quite enough for you to filter out everything else. Missed out the customary insult. But still, the rest is there. As a flat earth eco loon who wants us all to live in caves, I'm kind of pleased that you are now taking some vague interest in finance and business and are concerned about the state of the economy. Though I'm not sure the BBC is a good place to look for information, unless you are five years old. " Woohoo. A full house of Buck bingo! | |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing. Insults - check Confusion - check Missing the point - check Not discussing the topic - check Why do you think "remoaners", IE people who voted not to make the country shitter, like "bashing Britain"? Ah yes I can see that the article did mention Brexit. That's quite enough for you to filter out everything else. Missed out the customary insult. But still, the rest is there. As a flat earth eco loon who wants us all to live in caves, I'm kind of pleased that you are now taking some vague interest in finance and business and are concerned about the state of the economy. Though I'm not sure the BBC is a good place to look for information, unless you are five years old. Woohoo. A full house of Buck bingo!" A flat earth eco loon...ouch | |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing." I guess you voted to leave, i could have got that wrong, but let's make that assumption. With 20/20 hindsight, would you still have voted leave and if so why? | |||
| |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing. Insults - check Confusion - check Missing the point - check Not discussing the topic - check Why do you think "remoaners", IE people who voted not to make the country shitter, like "bashing Britain"? Ah yes I can see that the article did mention Brexit. That's quite enough for you to filter out everything else. Missed out the customary insult. But still, the rest is there. As a flat earth eco loon who wants us all to live in caves, I'm kind of pleased that you are now taking some vague interest in finance and business and are concerned about the state of the economy. Though I'm not sure the BBC is a good place to look for information, unless you are five years old. Woohoo. A full house of Buck bingo! A flat earth eco loon...ouch "It was more fun than the usual insults and personal attacks! | |||
"I'd be interested to see the GDP growth by sectors. Could simply be an effect of mix? " The OECD has a lot of this data. Sometimes takes a bit of digging. | |||
"I'd be interested to see the GDP growth by sectors. Could simply be an effect of mix? The OECD has a lot of this data. Sometimes takes a bit of digging. " having a CBA moment. Kinda thing the BBC shoudla done imo  | |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing." Is this another fine brexiteer who's going to give us the top 10 benefits of brexit ? | |||
"I'd be interested to see the GDP growth by sectors. Could simply be an effect of mix? The OECD has a lot of this data. Sometimes takes a bit of digging. having a CBA moment. Kinda thing the BBC shoudla done imo "It would have been interesting if it went into more depth. It's not really telling us much we don't know. The brexit clusterfuck, combined with a government who prioritised disaster capitalism for their pals over dealing with the pandemic itself left us behind the pack. This is what people voted for though. | |||
 | |||
"Looks like Brexit still is the elephant in the room "*Elephant turd in the room. | |||
| |||
"Struggling? our company owner was over from Europe this week, he doesn't see us struggling. I deal with companies globally, at the moment the UK is doing far better than others. Far East is no longer that cheap, China is now expensive, India way behind in the quality and cost is much the same as the UK. Foundrys and machine shops I use in the UK are at 14 - 15 weeks lead time, so hardly struggling. " This article is about the UK economy. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Infact Just for fun. Given the link to faisals column and the bbc This is the bbc acknowledging it. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59991870 " Except that that is from January, before the revised figures. | |||
"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/quarterlynationalaccounts/apriltojune2022#:~:text=The%20level%20of%20real%20quarterly,its%20Quarter%204%202019%20level If you go to point 2 Headline GDP figures. You will see the revision and notes on the blue book. This is a guardian article (for the lefties) explaining how previously the uk had recovered. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/14/uk-economy-back-to-pre-pandemic-levels-in-november" This appears to be selective quotation and motivated thinking. Quoted in the same ONS page: "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." It's possible that they may be revised again, but right now the best data available is what exists. Why would journalist choose to use the old data rather than the new data? Does that make them biased? Your Guardian article was from January. The new one with the revised figures: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/30/uk-is-only-g7-country-with-smaller-economy-than-before-covid-19 I don't read the Guardian. The well known anti-capitalist FT: https://www.ft.com/content/4edae69b-c82d-49fb-ae5a-03d14ca8caa6 The socialist Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-30/uk-economy-averts-immediate-recession-with-0-2-expansion?leadSource=uverify%20wall The House of Commons Library unable to understand the data: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ | |||
"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/quarterlynationalaccounts/apriltojune2022#:~:text=The%20level%20of%20real%20quarterly,its%20Quarter%204%202019%20level If you go to point 2 Headline GDP figures. You will see the revision and notes on the blue book. This is a guardian article (for the lefties) explaining how previously the uk had recovered. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/14/uk-economy-back-to-pre-pandemic-levels-in-november This appears to be selective quotation and motivated thinking. Quoted in the same ONS page: "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." It's possible that they may be revised again, but right now the best data available is what exists. Why would journalist choose to use the old data rather than the new data? Does that make them biased? Your Guardian article was from January. The new one with the revised figures: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/30/uk-is-only-g7-country-with-smaller-economy-than-before-covid-19 I don't read the Guardian. The well known anti-capitalist FT: https://www.ft.com/content/4edae69b-c82d-49fb-ae5a-03d14ca8caa6 The socialist Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-30/uk-economy-averts-immediate-recession-with-0-2-expansion?leadSource=uverify%20wall The House of Commons Library unable to understand the data: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/" The gdp estimates are always revised as new data comes in. What i specifically refer you to is the alteration of the blue book for 3 years. This is not normal practice for the ons. But as I have highlighted and backed up with evidence. We were previously above q4 2019 in Nov 2021 A journalist" faisal islam" in your original post is chosing to post data without context. I am not saying he should use old data. But he makes no mention of the blue book alteration nor the other countries in his comparison not altering their equivalent of the blue books. Infact for Germany on de statis( their version) they made a big goof on their commentary. They said gdp was being driven by higher prices ( this is what the deflator is designed to do) So I'd you admit your gdp growth is being driven by lrice rises. You acknowledge your deflator is incorrect. I dont get why you are using a new guardian article. I think maybe you haven't understood the point I was making? All your new article does is again highlight that again that indeed the ONS changed its deflator historically. | |||
| |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. " where the source for this (versus Germany getting it right the first time) | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. where the source for this (versus Germany getting it right the first time)" Germany hasn't got it right first time. Hence on de statis quarterly report they say higher prices and driving gdp. In economic terms. That's an oxymoron | |||
| |||
| |||
"So the BBC article is deliberately misleading when comparing the British economy's performance Vs other countries as the measures are not equal?" The bbc article needs to give context That the uk measures its gdp much more accurately. | |||
| |||
"If you follow the data.worldbank link I gave you. You can compare each country. For example. The uk deflator puts our prices in 2021 at 14% higher than at the end of 2017 In Italy this is about 6% and the same with France, Germany 12% But this only comes in 2021 The uk correctly opted to put inflation numbers in in 2020 too to reflect fkr example shipping container prices going up almost 500% and the cost of wood etc and the change of customer buying habits. " o don't recall if /how we established the Germany one was wrong. | |||
"If you follow the data.worldbank link I gave you. You can compare each country. For example. The uk deflator puts our prices in 2021 at 14% higher than at the end of 2017 In Italy this is about 6% and the same with France, Germany 12% But this only comes in 2021 The uk correctly opted to put inflation numbers in in 2020 too to reflect fkr example shipping container prices going up almost 500% and the cost of wood etc and the change of customer buying habits. o don't recall if /how we established the Germany one was wrong. " I do get the data looks different ... But that doesn't mean it's wrong. I'd like some analysis. Not just looking at trends. | |||
"If you follow the data.worldbank link I gave you. You can compare each country. For example. The uk deflator puts our prices in 2021 at 14% higher than at the end of 2017 In Italy this is about 6% and the same with France, Germany 12% But this only comes in 2021 The uk correctly opted to put inflation numbers in in 2020 too to reflect fkr example shipping container prices going up almost 500% and the cost of wood etc and the change of customer buying habits. o don't recall if /how we established the Germany one was wrong. " You can't say gdpmhas increased because prices have increased. Prices don't affect gdp. Gdp is a measure of total transactions for goods. Not the increase in values of those transactions. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp See the bit on real vs nominal | |||
"If you follow the data.worldbank link I gave you. You can compare each country. For example. The uk deflator puts our prices in 2021 at 14% higher than at the end of 2017 In Italy this is about 6% and the same with France, Germany 12% But this only comes in 2021 The uk correctly opted to put inflation numbers in in 2020 too to reflect fkr example shipping container prices going up almost 500% and the cost of wood etc and the change of customer buying habits. o don't recall if /how we established the Germany one was wrong. I do get the data looks different ... But that doesn't mean it's wrong. I'd like some analysis. Not just looking at trends. " If you believe by 2021 from 2017. Italian cpi inflation was 6% then that's for you to believe. | |||
| |||
"No sorry this sounds like gobbledygook! What are you really telling us all Morleyman?" The sun always shines in Morleyman land. | |||
"I think it is more than that. The UK was at the forefront of the industrial revolution. Our infrastructure was world class back then. But we failed to upgrade and move with the times. Our societal nostalgia for the great Victorian era (and time of Empire) stretches into all manner of things, including our rail and road network. Our NIMBY attitude means we want to maintain our green and pleasant land (ie conserve how it looks to continue to resemble the era when Britain was indeed Great. Another example is our housing stock and ongoing obsession with Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian styles. We are generally a backward looking country (through rose coloured spectacles) due to our greatness being a thing of the past." | |||
| |||
"No sorry this sounds like gobbledygook! What are you really telling us all Morleyman?" So I have posted links to the ons saying it revised its inflation. I posted links to previous articles saying the uk had reached its pre corona gdp in November. I post a link that teaches you what a gdp deflator is. I posted a linksonyou can compare the deflator of each country and see the uks is much larger from 2020 and 2021 I posted a link to investopedia showing you what a deflator does But yet you still say gobbledygook? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it guess | |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing. Is this another fine brexiteer who's going to give us the top 10 benefits of brexit ?" Freedom Sovereignty EU army Foreigners Bendy bananas Freedom again Turkey joining the EU people in boats Something about a super state Reverting back to yards and inches | |||
"No sorry this sounds like gobbledygook! What are you really telling us all Morleyman? So I have posted links to the ons saying it revised its inflation. I posted links to previous articles saying the uk had reached its pre corona gdp in November. I post a link that teaches you what a gdp deflator is. I posted a linksonyou can compare the deflator of each country and see the uks is much larger from 2020 and 2021 I posted a link to investopedia showing you what a deflator does But yet you still say gobbledygook? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it guess " Top 3 Brexit benefits? | |||
"No sorry this sounds like gobbledygook! What are you really telling us all Morleyman? So I have posted links to the ons saying it revised its inflation. I posted links to previous articles saying the uk had reached its pre corona gdp in November. I post a link that teaches you what a gdp deflator is. I posted a linksonyou can compare the deflator of each country and see the uks is much larger from 2020 and 2021 I posted a link to investopedia showing you what a deflator does But yet you still say gobbledygook? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it guess Top 3 Brexit benefits? " Want to address the issue in the thread? Or can't you? | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. " I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? | |||
"No sorry this sounds like gobbledygook! What are you really telling us all Morleyman? So I have posted links to the ons saying it revised its inflation. I posted links to previous articles saying the uk had reached its pre corona gdp in November. I post a link that teaches you what a gdp deflator is. I posted a linksonyou can compare the deflator of each country and see the uks is much larger from 2020 and 2021 I posted a link to investopedia showing you what a deflator does But yet you still say gobbledygook? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it guess " See that’s the problem….you would rather say I am too stupid to understand all this information you have bestowed than explain yourself in simple terms….ie your proposition that the uk economy is doing fine and it’s just because we are measuring the “true?” value of GDP unlike the inflated values that the rest of the world are using? The point being that you are saying that things are not as bad as they appear so my question then is if that is the case why is the chancellors planning to increase taxes and austerity measures and why is there a belief in government that we are in some sort of financial black hole? I believe you like to be logical so can you give an overview of what you think the true status of the economy and the predictions of two years of recession mean? Is it all scaremongering or is there a potential for an economic crash? | |||
"So the BBC article is deliberately misleading when comparing the British economy's performance Vs other countries as the measures are not equal? The bbc article needs to give context That the uk measures its gdp much more accurately. " This is a complex subject indeed and I remember your posts on another similar thread which were well explained. The ONS website has a notice on it saying about the changes and that the figures cannot be compared to past figures due to the changes. It maybe would have been helpful if the BBC had mentioned that. More importantly I think the only way to compare countries is to use exactly the same method of calculations otherwise your not comparing like for like. Anyway whatever the true comparison, it seems like others we are starting a long down period which i just hope is not as bad as the predictions | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article?" There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. | |||
"No sorry this sounds like gobbledygook! What are you really telling us all Morleyman? So I have posted links to the ons saying it revised its inflation. I posted links to previous articles saying the uk had reached its pre corona gdp in November. I post a link that teaches you what a gdp deflator is. I posted a linksonyou can compare the deflator of each country and see the uks is much larger from 2020 and 2021 I posted a link to investopedia showing you what a deflator does But yet you still say gobbledygook? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it guess See that’s the problem….you would rather say I am too stupid to understand all this information you have bestowed than explain yourself in simple terms….ie your proposition that the uk economy is doing fine and it’s just because we are measuring the “true?” value of GDP unlike the inflated values that the rest of the world are using? The point being that you are saying that things are not as bad as they appear so my question then is if that is the case why is the chancellors planning to increase taxes and austerity measures and why is there a belief in government that we are in some sort of financial black hole? I believe you like to be logical so can you give an overview of what you think the true status of the economy and the predictions of two years of recession mean? Is it all scaremongering or is there a potential for an economic crash?" I dont think any economy is doing fine. I think we are headed for a downturn. The usa has already experienced this. Tbf I have given a breakdown. Provided links to how gdp is measured. Deflator. World Bank data on comparisons previous new items. I can't really do any further "gcse bitesize economics" than I jabe already given. I never said things aren't as bad as they appear. They are very bad. I am saying the uk is measuring how bad it is more accurately. Seriously this wasn't a hard concept to grasp. | |||
"No sorry this sounds like gobbledygook! What are you really telling us all Morleyman? So I have posted links to the ons saying it revised its inflation. I posted links to previous articles saying the uk had reached its pre corona gdp in November. I post a link that teaches you what a gdp deflator is. I posted a linksonyou can compare the deflator of each country and see the uks is much larger from 2020 and 2021 I posted a link to investopedia showing you what a deflator does But yet you still say gobbledygook? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it guess See that’s the problem….you would rather say I am too stupid to understand all this information you have bestowed than explain yourself in simple terms….ie your proposition that the uk economy is doing fine and it’s just because we are measuring the “true?” value of GDP unlike the inflated values that the rest of the world are using? The point being that you are saying that things are not as bad as they appear so my question then is if that is the case why is the chancellors planning to increase taxes and austerity measures and why is there a belief in government that we are in some sort of financial black hole? I believe you like to be logical so can you give an overview of what you think the true status of the economy and the predictions of two years of recession mean? Is it all scaremongering or is there a potential for an economic crash? I dont think any economy is doing fine. I think we are headed for a downturn. The usa has already experienced this. Tbf I have given a breakdown. Provided links to how gdp is measured. Deflator. World Bank data on comparisons previous new items. I can't really do any further "gcse bitesize economics" than I jabe already given. I never said things aren't as bad as they appear. They are very bad. I am saying the uk is measuring how bad it is more accurately. Seriously this wasn't a hard concept to grasp." So the bottom line is that you are bombarding us with data to then just say that the bbc were not comparing like for like when it comes to the data they used as the ONS data is more accurate than other countries data. You know that you don’t need to put so much effort into espousing a point of view and that one of the great arts in business life is the ability to present a concise narrative in a condensed form especially when you have the data to back it up. In other words that was a very long winded and to be honest quite arrogant way to put your point of view across so from now on I think I shall view you as Mr Spock | |||
"No sorry this sounds like gobbledygook! What are you really telling us all Morleyman? So I have posted links to the ons saying it revised its inflation. I posted links to previous articles saying the uk had reached its pre corona gdp in November. I post a link that teaches you what a gdp deflator is. I posted a linksonyou can compare the deflator of each country and see the uks is much larger from 2020 and 2021 I posted a link to investopedia showing you what a deflator does But yet you still say gobbledygook? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it guess See that’s the problem….you would rather say I am too stupid to understand all this information you have bestowed than explain yourself in simple terms….ie your proposition that the uk economy is doing fine and it’s just because we are measuring the “true?” value of GDP unlike the inflated values that the rest of the world are using? The point being that you are saying that things are not as bad as they appear so my question then is if that is the case why is the chancellors planning to increase taxes and austerity measures and why is there a belief in government that we are in some sort of financial black hole? I believe you like to be logical so can you give an overview of what you think the true status of the economy and the predictions of two years of recession mean? Is it all scaremongering or is there a potential for an economic crash? I dont think any economy is doing fine. I think we are headed for a downturn. The usa has already experienced this. Tbf I have given a breakdown. Provided links to how gdp is measured. Deflator. World Bank data on comparisons previous new items. I can't really do any further "gcse bitesize economics" than I jabe already given. I never said things aren't as bad as they appear. They are very bad. I am saying the uk is measuring how bad it is more accurately. Seriously this wasn't a hard concept to grasp. So the bottom line is that you are bombarding us with data to then just say that the bbc were not comparing like for like when it comes to the data they used as the ONS data is more accurate than other countries data. You know that you don’t need to put so much effort into espousing a point of view and that one of the great arts in business life is the ability to present a concise narrative in a condensed form especially when you have the data to back it up. In other words that was a very long winded and to be honest quite arrogant way to put your point of view across so from now on I think I shall view you as Mr Spock "The data they were using was different to previous uk data and yes. The deflator is different ad well as services measurement. You understand the concept then Great. I was trying to make you understand the reasoning. Glad you agree though that the bbc article is misleading by ot presenting the full narrative. Simply posting the backing data and reasoning isn't arrogant. What's arrogant is posting articles with some schadenfreude thinking there's a 1 upmanship without understanding the backing data. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Morley Appreciate the many links. I'm catching up, so bear with me. This deflayor is the key bit. I looked at one of the kns links but couldn't find anything that explained the revision. The blue book seemed more focussed on solvency ii impacts. You also mention destatis saying grwoth is from price rises. I agree, all things being equal thats not right. However in trying to find yeh actual source I stumbled on this What happens to GDP when prices increase? This is because, in a world where inflation is increasing, people will spend more money because they know that it will be less valuable in the future. This causes further increases in GDP in the short term, bringing about further price increases. Also, the effects of inflation are not linear. Investopedia. Could that explain it ?" I wish I could take screen shots and post. The blue book. I assume youbread the link below relating to the measures and changes? Point 4 impact of blue book current price. And then point 6 impact on GDP deflator. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/impactofbluebook2022changesongrossdomesticproduct/2022-08-22 Regarding the spending. I can't remember the economic term. But typically. In high inflation it'd usesless holding onto money as it devalues over time( see venezuelan/ Argentinean examples of currency collapse) people will buy good that hold better value. E.g if I have a pound today and because of inflation I know in 3 months that pound will be 30p I can buy bread for 10p right now. As a smart man. I would buy 10 pieces of bread now and freeze them. Vs buying 1 now and at best another 3 in tbe future. ( a very rudimentary way of describing that) With regards to linear. My assumption would be that they are describing that 10% inflation in 1 year and and 0% in the succeeding 9. Is much worse than 1% inflation year on year. As this would completely change the dynamics of purchasing power and bankrupt businesses short term | |||
"Morley Appreciate the many links. I'm catching up, so bear with me. This deflayor is the key bit. I looked at one of the kns links but couldn't find anything that explained the revision. The blue book seemed more focussed on solvency ii impacts. You also mention destatis saying grwoth is from price rises. I agree, all things being equal thats not right. However in trying to find yeh actual source I stumbled on this What happens to GDP when prices increase? This is because, in a world where inflation is increasing, people will spend more money because they know that it will be less valuable in the future. This causes further increases in GDP in the short term, bringing about further price increases. Also, the effects of inflation are not linear. Investopedia. Could that explain it ? I wish I could take screen shots and post. The blue book. I assume youbread the link below relating to the measures and changes? Point 4 impact of blue book current price. And then point 6 impact on GDP deflator. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/impactofbluebook2022changesongrossdomesticproduct/2022-08-22 Regarding the spending. I can't remember the economic term. But typically. In high inflation it'd usesless holding onto money as it devalues over time( see venezuelan/ Argentinean examples of currency collapse) people will buy good that hold better value. E.g if I have a pound today and because of inflation I know in 3 months that pound will be 30p I can buy bread for 10p right now. As a smart man. I would buy 10 pieces of bread now and freeze them. Vs buying 1 now and at best another 3 in tbe future. ( a very rudimentary way of describing that) With regards to linear. My assumption would be that they are describing that 10% inflation in 1 year and and 0% in the succeeding 9. Is much worse than 1% inflation year on year. As this would completely change the dynamics of purchasing power and bankrupt businesses short term " thanks. That wasn't the BB link I was looking at but is useful. This bit jumped out Movements in the GDP implied deflator in 2020 have been largely affected by the government consumption deflator, which is the expenditure that is incurred by government in producing non-market goods and services, such as health and education. The volume of government activity fell, while at the same time government expenditure increased in nominal terms That feels more specific to governments that industry. So *could* explain a UK specific change. That said, itrc, we have a different way of measuring health care GDP so maybe that's true here too. I totally agree on your inflation explanation ... It drives hyper inflation as the vicious circle kicks in. Do you agree that it *could* explain the de statis oxymoron? | |||
"Morley Appreciate the many links. I'm catching up, so bear with me. This deflayor is the key bit. I looked at one of the kns links but couldn't find anything that explained the revision. The blue book seemed more focussed on solvency ii impacts. You also mention destatis saying grwoth is from price rises. I agree, all things being equal thats not right. However in trying to find yeh actual source I stumbled on this What happens to GDP when prices increase? This is because, in a world where inflation is increasing, people will spend more money because they know that it will be less valuable in the future. This causes further increases in GDP in the short term, bringing about further price increases. Also, the effects of inflation are not linear. Investopedia. Could that explain it ? I wish I could take screen shots and post. The blue book. I assume youbread the link below relating to the measures and changes? Point 4 impact of blue book current price. And then point 6 impact on GDP deflator. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/impactofbluebook2022changesongrossdomesticproduct/2022-08-22 Regarding the spending. I can't remember the economic term. But typically. In high inflation it'd usesless holding onto money as it devalues over time( see venezuelan/ Argentinean examples of currency collapse) people will buy good that hold better value. E.g if I have a pound today and because of inflation I know in 3 months that pound will be 30p I can buy bread for 10p right now. As a smart man. I would buy 10 pieces of bread now and freeze them. Vs buying 1 now and at best another 3 in tbe future. ( a very rudimentary way of describing that) With regards to linear. My assumption would be that they are describing that 10% inflation in 1 year and and 0% in the succeeding 9. Is much worse than 1% inflation year on year. As this would completely change the dynamics of purchasing power and bankrupt businesses short term " What you are missing is that inflation unfairly only hits poor people or more accurately workers with little or no disposable income. Often poor people are better off. The percentage of your income you spend on essential goods and services determines how inflation proof or not you are There’s no need most people to convert savings at 3 -6% to Gold or antiques , because inflation on their spending as a percentage of their income much, much lower than the savings rates. Even in countries like Nigeria with 16% inflation low paid salaried workers ( not traders) spend a very small percentage on food , fuel and transport , rent and put the rest into savings or childrens’ education. The Niara is double on the pound than a year ago, last week was 950 yet it’s not really having much impact if you have a salary. Here in the uk low paid salaried workers sped all their income just surviving because taxes , transport and housing are so expensive | |||
"Morley Appreciate the many links. I'm catching up, so bear with me. This deflayor is the key bit. I looked at one of the kns links but couldn't find anything that explained the revision. The blue book seemed more focussed on solvency ii impacts. You also mention destatis saying grwoth is from price rises. I agree, all things being equal thats not right. However in trying to find yeh actual source I stumbled on this What happens to GDP when prices increase? This is because, in a world where inflation is increasing, people will spend more money because they know that it will be less valuable in the future. This causes further increases in GDP in the short term, bringing about further price increases. Also, the effects of inflation are not linear. Investopedia. Could that explain it ? I wish I could take screen shots and post. The blue book. I assume youbread the link below relating to the measures and changes? Point 4 impact of blue book current price. And then point 6 impact on GDP deflator. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/impactofbluebook2022changesongrossdomesticproduct/2022-08-22 Regarding the spending. I can't remember the economic term. But typically. In high inflation it'd usesless holding onto money as it devalues over time( see venezuelan/ Argentinean examples of currency collapse) people will buy good that hold better value. E.g if I have a pound today and because of inflation I know in 3 months that pound will be 30p I can buy bread for 10p right now. As a smart man. I would buy 10 pieces of bread now and freeze them. Vs buying 1 now and at best another 3 in tbe future. ( a very rudimentary way of describing that) With regards to linear. My assumption would be that they are describing that 10% inflation in 1 year and and 0% in the succeeding 9. Is much worse than 1% inflation year on year. As this would completely change the dynamics of purchasing power and bankrupt businesses short term thanks. That wasn't the BB link I was looking at but is useful. This bit jumped out Movements in the GDP implied deflator in 2020 have been largely affected by the government consumption deflator, which is the expenditure that is incurred by government in producing non-market goods and services, such as health and education. The volume of government activity fell, while at the same time government expenditure increased in nominal terms That feels more specific to governments that industry. So *could* explain a UK specific change. That said, itrc, we have a different way of measuring health care GDP so maybe that's true here too. I totally agree on your inflation explanation ... It drives hyper inflation as the vicious circle kicks in. Do you agree that it *could* explain the de statis oxymoron? " So that last of the deflator. Was the original one before the revision. The oecd asked all countries to measure their education/defense/ health services ina specific way( it escapes me atm) in 2020 our initial hit before the revisions was 9.3%. This was greater than every other ecp omy due to that aspect of following the oecd request. The uk uses output indicators whereas other g7 countries use deflation of outputs as well as input deflaotrs. Im not going to sit here and say I understand all this. I dont. This is where the boffins at ons come in and I rely on their word. But we follow the oecd requirements for volumes but others do not( as is their choice) but the uk shouldn't be degraded for trying to measure more accurately. ( that's where my problem comes in with the bbc) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/internationalcomparisonsofgdpduringthecoronaviruscovid19pandemic/2021-02-01#volume-estimates-of-health This should give some insight. Regarding the health and education. There are some very major differences that drive the calcs. There's another explainer the ons did vs Australia. If I can find it. Which describes how different methodologies and corona policy affected gdp. I didnt quite get what you were asking re de statis sorry. We're you asking if destatis health measures affected why its deflator was lower? | |||
"Morley Appreciate the many links. I'm catching up, so bear with me. This deflayor is the key bit. I looked at one of the kns links but couldn't find anything that explained the revision. The blue book seemed more focussed on solvency ii impacts. You also mention destatis saying grwoth is from price rises. I agree, all things being equal thats not right. However in trying to find yeh actual source I stumbled on this What happens to GDP when prices increase? This is because, in a world where inflation is increasing, people will spend more money because they know that it will be less valuable in the future. This causes further increases in GDP in the short term, bringing about further price increases. Also, the effects of inflation are not linear. Investopedia. Could that explain it ? I wish I could take screen shots and post. The blue book. I assume youbread the link below relating to the measures and changes? Point 4 impact of blue book current price. And then point 6 impact on GDP deflator. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/impactofbluebook2022changesongrossdomesticproduct/2022-08-22 Regarding the spending. I can't remember the economic term. But typically. In high inflation it'd usesless holding onto money as it devalues over time( see venezuelan/ Argentinean examples of currency collapse) people will buy good that hold better value. E.g if I have a pound today and because of inflation I know in 3 months that pound will be 30p I can buy bread for 10p right now. As a smart man. I would buy 10 pieces of bread now and freeze them. Vs buying 1 now and at best another 3 in tbe future. ( a very rudimentary way of describing that) With regards to linear. My assumption would be that they are describing that 10% inflation in 1 year and and 0% in the succeeding 9. Is much worse than 1% inflation year on year. As this would completely change the dynamics of purchasing power and bankrupt businesses short term What you are missing is that inflation unfairly only hits poor people or more accurately workers with little or no disposable income. Often poor people are better off. The percentage of your income you spend on essential goods and services determines how inflation proof or not you are There’s no need most people to convert savings at 3 -6% to Gold or antiques , because inflation on their spending as a percentage of their income much, much lower than the savings rates. Even in countries like Nigeria with 16% inflation low paid salaried workers ( not traders) spend a very small percentage on food , fuel and transport , rent and put the rest into savings or childrens’ education. The Niara is double on the pound than a year ago, last week was 950 yet it’s not really having much impact if you have a salary. Here in the uk low paid salaried workers sped all their income just surviving because taxes , transport and housing are so expensive " I think you are confusing inflation with forex rates? I dont necessarily disagree. Though. One kfnthe major failing of the bofe and uk stats authority is using cpi and cpih as a measure. Its poor. Rpi should be used. And yes the uk spends the majority of disposable take home on rents/fuel/mortgage etc. | |||
"Morley Appreciate the many links. I'm catching up, so bear with me. This deflayor is the key bit. I looked at one of the kns links but couldn't find anything that explained the revision. The blue book seemed more focussed on solvency ii impacts. You also mention destatis saying grwoth is from price rises. I agree, all things being equal thats not right. However in trying to find yeh actual source I stumbled on this What happens to GDP when prices increase? This is because, in a world where inflation is increasing, people will spend more money because they know that it will be less valuable in the future. This causes further increases in GDP in the short term, bringing about further price increases. Also, the effects of inflation are not linear. Investopedia. Could that explain it ? I wish I could take screen shots and post. The blue book. I assume youbread the link below relating to the measures and changes? Point 4 impact of blue book current price. And then point 6 impact on GDP deflator. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/impactofbluebook2022changesongrossdomesticproduct/2022-08-22 Regarding the spending. I can't remember the economic term. But typically. In high inflation it'd usesless holding onto money as it devalues over time( see venezuelan/ Argentinean examples of currency collapse) people will buy good that hold better value. E.g if I have a pound today and because of inflation I know in 3 months that pound will be 30p I can buy bread for 10p right now. As a smart man. I would buy 10 pieces of bread now and freeze them. Vs buying 1 now and at best another 3 in tbe future. ( a very rudimentary way of describing that) With regards to linear. My assumption would be that they are describing that 10% inflation in 1 year and and 0% in the succeeding 9. Is much worse than 1% inflation year on year. As this would completely change the dynamics of purchasing power and bankrupt businesses short term thanks. That wasn't the BB link I was looking at but is useful. This bit jumped out Movements in the GDP implied deflator in 2020 have been largely affected by the government consumption deflator, which is the expenditure that is incurred by government in producing non-market goods and services, such as health and education. The volume of government activity fell, while at the same time government expenditure increased in nominal terms That feels more specific to governments that industry. So *could* explain a UK specific change. That said, itrc, we have a different way of measuring health care GDP so maybe that's true here too. I totally agree on your inflation explanation ... It drives hyper inflation as the vicious circle kicks in. Do you agree that it *could* explain the de statis oxymoron? So that last of the deflator. Was the original one before the revision. The oecd asked all countries to measure their education/defense/ health services ina specific way( it escapes me atm) in 2020 our initial hit before the revisions was 9.3%. This was greater than every other ecp omy due to that aspect of following the oecd request. The uk uses output indicators whereas other g7 countries use deflation of outputs as well as input deflaotrs. Im not going to sit here and say I understand all this. I dont. This is where the boffins at ons come in and I rely on their word. But we follow the oecd requirements for volumes but others do not( as is their choice) but the uk shouldn't be degraded for trying to measure more accurately. ( that's where my problem comes in with the bbc) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/internationalcomparisonsofgdpduringthecoronaviruscovid19pandemic/2021-02-01#volume-estimates-of-health This should give some insight. Regarding the health and education. There are some very major differences that drive the calcs. There's another explainer the ons did vs Australia. If I can find it. Which describes how different methodologies and corona policy affected gdp. I didnt quite get what you were asking re de statis sorry. We're you asking if destatis health measures affected why its deflator was lower? " thanks. In off out now but wanted to acknowledge. That health bit was what I was referring to. Makes our GDP more bumpy irrc. And probably our deflator. But in the end it should all wash out (in very simple terms). | |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you." Brexit has cost the economy £100bn a year Perpetual state debt now £2,500,000,000,000 Doubled by labour 97-2010 and then trebled by tories Country lives beyond its means, has not invested Manufacturing reduced to 14% gdp Agriculture reduced to 0.59% gdp 1,600,000 on council house waiting lists (1.1m 2010) 6.8 million waiting hospital treatment (5m pre covid) tories plus those before them wasting money: £1,500,000,000,000 added to national debt by tories (trebled in 12 years) £100,000,000,000 annual brexit hit on the economy £37,000,000,000 track and trace £26,000,000,000 extra mortgage interest dumped on households by Truss/Kwarteng £19,000,000,000 Bank of England intervention to rectify truss/Kwarteng policies £11,000,000,000 interest rate insurance negligence by Sunak £9,000,000,000 written off bounce back loans by Sunak £4,900,000,000 written off out of date PPE £4,000,000,000 second large PPE write off £3,200,000,000 annual lost HMRC revenue from 68,200 non doms £1,700,000,000 awarded to 46 preferential VIP tory donors in PPE contracts £850,000,000 eat out to help out £421,000,000 further tranche of written off bounce back loans £125,000,000 on illegal deportation contract to Rwanda £72,000,000 lease of Govt charter plane £53,000,000 garden bridge project written off £25,000,000 annual cost of maintaining 10681 long term empty MOD homes £2,000,000 for Truss's last few months travel expenses as foreign secretary £900,000 Irish sea tunnel feasibility study £900,000 repainting Johnson’s voyager plane £500,000 police cost investigating partygate £500,000 for Sunaks image makeover £320,000 Johnsons London water cannon, sold for £25K scrap £219,703.44 claimed by Lee Anderson for expenses £175,840.71 claimed by Priti Patel for expenses £174,000 spent by Blackpool council on 6 trees £147,943.28 claimed by Will Quince for expenses £115,000 annual allowances for Johnson, Truss + next £62,000 a head in flights to illegally deport seven refugees £3,000 claimed by Liz Truss for private members | |||
"If you follow the data.worldbank link I gave you. You can compare each country. For example. The uk deflator puts our prices in 2021 at 14% higher than at the end of 2017 In Italy this is about 6% and the same with France, Germany 12% But this only comes in 2021 The uk correctly opted to put inflation numbers in in 2020 too to reflect fkr example shipping container prices going up almost 500% and the cost of wood etc and the change of customer buying habits. " Inflation. European Union (EU27) average 10.9% Estonia 24.1% Lithuania 22.5% Latvia 22% Hungary 20.7% Czechia 17.8% Netherlands 17.1% Poland 15.7% Bulgaria 15.6% Slovakia 13.6% Romania 13.4% Croatia 12.6% Belgium 12.1% Greece 12.1% Denmark 11.1% Austria 10.9% Germany 10.9% Slovenia 10.6% UK 10.2% USA 7.7% We really should stop whinging | |||
"Brexit in its many parts, including the shocking impact on trade, exodus of young europeans and the job vacuum it left behind. Inflated house prices, mismanagement of the economy, low wages and no market faith in our government." In other words we are just a bunch of work shy lovers. | |||
"If you follow the data.worldbank link I gave you. You can compare each country. For example. The uk deflator puts our prices in 2021 at 14% higher than at the end of 2017 In Italy this is about 6% and the same with France, Germany 12% But this only comes in 2021 The uk correctly opted to put inflation numbers in in 2020 too to reflect fkr example shipping container prices going up almost 500% and the cost of wood etc and the change of customer buying habits. Inflation. European Union (EU27) average 10.9% Estonia 24.1% Lithuania 22.5% Latvia 22% Hungary 20.7% Czechia 17.8% Netherlands 17.1% Poland 15.7% Bulgaria 15.6% Slovakia 13.6% Romania 13.4% Croatia 12.6% Belgium 12.1% Greece 12.1% Denmark 11.1% Austria 10.9% Germany 10.9% Slovenia 10.6% UK 10.2% USA 7.7% We really should stop whinging " I am not whinging. I am putting stuff into context. But this highlights how far away most European countries are away from having the right deflators. | |||
"perhaps it is because we are a small country ? France is 3 times the size of the UK with a similar sized population. We have expensive houses overcrowded infrastructure & poor government. I think it is more than that. The UK was at the forefront of the industrial revolution. Our infrastructure was world class back then. But we failed to upgrade and move with the times. Our societal nostalgia for the great Victorian era (and time of Empire) stretches into all manner of things, including our rail and road network. Our NIMBY attitude means we want to maintain our green and pleasant land (ie conserve how it looks to continue to resemble the era when Britain was indeed Great. Another example is our housing stock and ongoing obsession with Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian styles. We are generally a backward looking country (through rose coloured spectacles) due to our greatness being a thing of the past." I think people like houses from those architectural periods because they're beautiful, not through any kind of nationalist nostalgia. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you." Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. | |||
"Brexit in its many parts, including the shocking impact on trade, exodus of young europeans and the job vacuum it left behind. Inflated house prices, mismanagement of the economy, low wages and no market faith in our government. In other words we are just a bunch of work shy lovers." 1 million job vancies out there lol | |||
"perhaps it is because we are a small country ? France is 3 times the size of the UK with a similar sized population. We have expensive houses overcrowded infrastructure & poor government. I think it is more than that. The UK was at the forefront of the industrial revolution. Our infrastructure was world class back then. But we failed to upgrade and move with the times. Our societal nostalgia for the great Victorian era (and time of Empire) stretches into all manner of things, including our rail and road network. Our NIMBY attitude means we want to maintain our green and pleasant land (ie conserve how it looks to continue to resemble the era when Britain was indeed Great. Another example is our housing stock and ongoing obsession with Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian styles. We are generally a backward looking country (through rose coloured spectacles) due to our greatness being a thing of the past. I think people like houses from those architectural periods because they're beautiful, not through any kind of nationalist nostalgia." I blame it all on the National Trust….a tax dodge for the wealthy that focuses on the past instead of looking to the future….having said that I live in a Georgian house so I can’t really talk  | |||
| |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. " 99% ? | |||
"perhaps it is because we are a small country ? France is 3 times the size of the UK with a similar sized population. We have expensive houses overcrowded infrastructure & poor government. I think it is more than that. The UK was at the forefront of the industrial revolution. Our infrastructure was world class back then. But we failed to upgrade and move with the times. Our societal nostalgia for the great Victorian era (and time of Empire) stretches into all manner of things, including our rail and road network. Our NIMBY attitude means we want to maintain our green and pleasant land (ie conserve how it looks to continue to resemble the era when Britain was indeed Great. Another example is our housing stock and ongoing obsession with Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian styles. We are generally a backward looking country (through rose coloured spectacles) due to our greatness being a thing of the past. I think people like houses from those architectural periods because they're beautiful, not through any kind of nationalist nostalgia." Some will for sure but nostalgia is evoked by quite subliminal prompts. The architecture is considered “beautiful” by some because it associates with a period of greatness. Music works in a similar fashion. It is also why many Western societies use Greco-Roman style architecture for their government buildings (just look at Washington). | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. " I would like to live my life in a Britain with a government that works in the interests of the people, instead of their own interests and the interests of their corporate backers. | |||
| |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. " Millions of people are having to use food banks | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning!" So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? | |||
| |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning!" Which analysis is this? | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning!" The obr didn't confirm that at all | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? " That largely depends on if you trust places like the OBR and their results. If you do then it has grown, if you don't then its a toss of a coin. I think what a lot of people experience is they see the figures but for them it just does not feel like reality. | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? " In economic terms there was no austerity. Austerity is defined as increases in taxes and reduction in public spending Corporate tax went from 25% to 19% Perosnal allowance almost doubled from 6.5k to 12.5 k NI stayed the same e for pretty much the entire time until recently. All public spending went up bar 1 year. You maybe have VAT that went up 5% Personal tax that was meant to gk to 45% stayed at40% the threshold increased 3k then a further 6 k. | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? That largely depends on if you trust places like the OBR and their results. If you do then it has grown, if you don't then its a toss of a coin. I think what a lot of people experience is they see the figures but for them it just does not feel like reality." A friend of mine did digging intot he actual OBR report. It's a set of forecasts from 2018 on expected growth for the next 5 years of the uk. So at best it's finger In the air stuff. The obr put together 13 forecasts from different sources on growth. 1 particular outlier had the us growing 10% more in the e.u than we did. Some of the forecasts used are quite well known sources imf , oecd etc. These ethnically have us about 1-3% off the growth pattern vs 2 of the main outliers. The main problem with this though... Germany and France also missed their imf and oecd targets by the exact same amounts? We they also hindered by the brexit vote? Seemingly so. This is a good breakdown. https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1556587242046590980?t=gvtq5qbwQ9oBQIAsR1zP4w&s=19 | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? That largely depends on if you trust places like the OBR and their results. If you do then it has grown, if you don't then its a toss of a coin. I think what a lot of people experience is they see the figures but for them it just does not feel like reality. A friend of mine did digging intot he actual OBR report. It's a set of forecasts from 2018 on expected growth for the next 5 years of the uk. So at best it's finger In the air stuff. The obr put together 13 forecasts from different sources on growth. 1 particular outlier had the us growing 10% more in the e.u than we did. Some of the forecasts used are quite well known sources imf , oecd etc. These ethnically have us about 1-3% off the growth pattern vs 2 of the main outliers. The main problem with this though... Germany and France also missed their imf and oecd targets by the exact same amounts? We they also hindered by the brexit vote? Seemingly so. This is a good breakdown. https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1556587242046590980?t=gvtq5qbwQ9oBQIAsR1zP4w&s=19" Interesting Twitter thread. As ever, I suspect the effects are directionally correct, but some will spin the magnitude. I don't follow your imf point. Did the IMF give us post vtecut targets that we hit, and the Germans missed ? Or did everyone miss their target? | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? That largely depends on if you trust places like the OBR and their results. If you do then it has grown, if you don't then its a toss of a coin. I think what a lot of people experience is they see the figures but for them it just does not feel like reality. A friend of mine did digging intot he actual OBR report. It's a set of forecasts from 2018 on expected growth for the next 5 years of the uk. So at best it's finger In the air stuff. The obr put together 13 forecasts from different sources on growth. 1 particular outlier had the us growing 10% more in the e.u than we did. Some of the forecasts used are quite well known sources imf , oecd etc. These ethnically have us about 1-3% off the growth pattern vs 2 of the main outliers. The main problem with this though... Germany and France also missed their imf and oecd targets by the exact same amounts? We they also hindered by the brexit vote? Seemingly so. This is a good breakdown. https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1556587242046590980?t=gvtq5qbwQ9oBQIAsR1zP4w&s=19 Interesting Twitter thread. As ever, I suspect the effects are directionally correct, but some will spin the magnitude. I don't follow your imf point. Did the IMF give us post vtecut targets that we hit, and the Germans missed ? Or did everyone miss their target? " So the imf releases its quarterly outturn expectations for each country for the next 2 years at the end of each year it does a 5 year forecast.of what it expects for the g7 countries. Germany for example was expected to grow 4.5% It grew just over 2% | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? That largely depends on if you trust places like the OBR and their results. If you do then it has grown, if you don't then its a toss of a coin. I think what a lot of people experience is they see the figures but for them it just does not feel like reality. A friend of mine did digging intot he actual OBR report. It's a set of forecasts from 2018 on expected growth for the next 5 years of the uk. So at best it's finger In the air stuff. The obr put together 13 forecasts from different sources on growth. 1 particular outlier had the us growing 10% more in the e.u than we did. Some of the forecasts used are quite well known sources imf , oecd etc. These ethnically have us about 1-3% off the growth pattern vs 2 of the main outliers. The main problem with this though... Germany and France also missed their imf and oecd targets by the exact same amounts? We they also hindered by the brexit vote? Seemingly so. This is a good breakdown. https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1556587242046590980?t=gvtq5qbwQ9oBQIAsR1zP4w&s=19 Interesting Twitter thread. As ever, I suspect the effects are directionally correct, but some will spin the magnitude. I don't follow your imf point. Did the IMF give us post vtecut targets that we hit, and the Germans missed ? Or did everyone miss their target? So the imf releases its quarterly outturn expectations for each country for the next 2 years at the end of each year it does a 5 year forecast.of what it expects for the g7 countries. Germany for example was expected to grow 4.5% It grew just over 2% " This one is 2018 and 2019 projections. From the imf on a 2 year time series. I'm a bit busy today and the reports are a pain to open on a mobile. But I am sure if youw ant to dig into the IMF outturn at the end of each year. You can find them yourself. And then simply Google how much Germany grew in tbe respective years vs IMF outturn. | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? That largely depends on if you trust places like the OBR and their results. If you do then it has grown, if you don't then its a toss of a coin. I think what a lot of people experience is they see the figures but for them it just does not feel like reality. A friend of mine did digging intot he actual OBR report. It's a set of forecasts from 2018 on expected growth for the next 5 years of the uk. So at best it's finger In the air stuff. The obr put together 13 forecasts from different sources on growth. 1 particular outlier had the us growing 10% more in the e.u than we did. Some of the forecasts used are quite well known sources imf , oecd etc. These ethnically have us about 1-3% off the growth pattern vs 2 of the main outliers. The main problem with this though... Germany and France also missed their imf and oecd targets by the exact same amounts? We they also hindered by the brexit vote? Seemingly so. This is a good breakdown. https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1556587242046590980?t=gvtq5qbwQ9oBQIAsR1zP4w&s=19 Interesting Twitter thread. As ever, I suspect the effects are directionally correct, but some will spin the magnitude. I don't follow your imf point. Did the IMF give us post vtecut targets that we hit, and the Germans missed ? Or did everyone miss their target? So the imf releases its quarterly outturn expectations for each country for the next 2 years at the end of each year it does a 5 year forecast.of what it expects for the g7 countries. Germany for example was expected to grow 4.5% It grew just over 2% " what were the UK numbers ? What I'm trying to work out is, I'd the IMF had baked in a brexit reduction of 2pc into our numbers, then if everyone misses by 2pc.i don't understand your comment that Germany was hindered by Brexit. But if Germany missed by 2pc more than us, then I can see an argument. (Or an argument brexiy shieldws us from shocks) We are of course having a sliding doors discussion. No-one will really know. And given cobid and Ukraine we have quite a lot of other nosie that will effect countries unequally. | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? That largely depends on if you trust places like the OBR and their results. If you do then it has grown, if you don't then its a toss of a coin. I think what a lot of people experience is they see the figures but for them it just does not feel like reality. A friend of mine did digging intot he actual OBR report. It's a set of forecasts from 2018 on expected growth for the next 5 years of the uk. So at best it's finger In the air stuff. The obr put together 13 forecasts from different sources on growth. 1 particular outlier had the us growing 10% more in the e.u than we did. Some of the forecasts used are quite well known sources imf , oecd etc. These ethnically have us about 1-3% off the growth pattern vs 2 of the main outliers. The main problem with this though... Germany and France also missed their imf and oecd targets by the exact same amounts? We they also hindered by the brexit vote? Seemingly so. This is a good breakdown. https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1556587242046590980?t=gvtq5qbwQ9oBQIAsR1zP4w&s=19 Interesting Twitter thread. As ever, I suspect the effects are directionally correct, but some will spin the magnitude. I don't follow your imf point. Did the IMF give us post vtecut targets that we hit, and the Germans missed ? Or did everyone miss their target? So the imf releases its quarterly outturn expectations for each country for the next 2 years at the end of each year it does a 5 year forecast.of what it expects for the g7 countries. Germany for example was expected to grow 4.5% It grew just over 2% what were the UK numbers ? What I'm trying to work out is, I'd the IMF had baked in a brexit reduction of 2pc into our numbers, then if everyone misses by 2pc.i don't understand your comment that Germany was hindered by Brexit. But if Germany missed by 2pc more than us, then I can see an argument. (Or an argument brexiy shieldws us from shocks) We are of course having a sliding doors discussion. No-one will really know. And given cobid and Ukraine we have quite a lot of other nosie that will effect countries unequally. " No yhe IMF didn't bake in leaving the e.u As the uk didn't leave the e.u until 2020. There was no formal agreement to leave the e.u at that point. | |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. I would like to live my life in a Britain with a government that works in the interests of the people, instead of their own interests and the interests of their corporate backers. " Good job you do then. Literally one the best societies and country in the world. Learn to appreciate what you have ffs. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. Millions of people are having to use food banks "Millions lmfao. 2.1 to be precise and it's less tham last year. If you give free stuff away people will always take it. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. Millions of people are having to use food banks
Millions lmfao. 2.1 to be precise and it's less tham last year. If you give free stuff away people will always take it."2.1 million people use food banks, | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. I would like to live my life in a Britain with a government that works in the interests of the people, instead of their own interests and the interests of their corporate backers. Good job you do then. Literally one the best societies and country in the world. Learn to appreciate what you have ffs." Are we no longer allowed to criticise the government, should all those who express dissent be silenced? | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. I would like to live my life in a Britain with a government that works in the interests of the people, instead of their own interests and the interests of their corporate backers. Good job you do then. Literally one the best societies and country in the world. Learn to appreciate what you have ffs. Are we no longer allowed to criticise the government, should all those who express dissent be silenced? " Like they do in Russia, China and North Korea, fortunately we are not at that stage, yet | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. I would like to live my life in a Britain with a government that works in the interests of the people, instead of their own interests and the interests of their corporate backers. Good job you do then. Literally one the best societies and country in the world. Learn to appreciate what you have ffs. Are we no longer allowed to criticise the government, should all those who express dissent be silenced? Like they do in Russia, China and North Korea, fortunately we are not at that stage, yet " Always feels disingenuous when people cheer on the UK becoming some kind of judge dredd style totalitarian society. | |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? That largely depends on if you trust places like the OBR and their results. If you do then it has grown, if you don't then its a toss of a coin. I think what a lot of people experience is they see the figures but for them it just does not feel like reality. A friend of mine did digging intot he actual OBR report. It's a set of forecasts from 2018 on expected growth for the next 5 years of the uk. So at best it's finger In the air stuff. The obr put together 13 forecasts from different sources on growth. 1 particular outlier had the us growing 10% more in the e.u than we did. Some of the forecasts used are quite well known sources imf , oecd etc. These ethnically have us about 1-3% off the growth pattern vs 2 of the main outliers. The main problem with this though... Germany and France also missed their imf and oecd targets by the exact same amounts? We they also hindered by the brexit vote? Seemingly so. This is a good breakdown. https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1556587242046590980?t=gvtq5qbwQ9oBQIAsR1zP4w&s=19 Interesting Twitter thread. As ever, I suspect the effects are directionally correct, but some will spin the magnitude. I don't follow your imf point. Did the IMF give us post vtecut targets that we hit, and the Germans missed ? Or did everyone miss their target? So the imf releases its quarterly outturn expectations for each country for the next 2 years at the end of each year it does a 5 year forecast.of what it expects for the g7 countries. Germany for example was expected to grow 4.5% It grew just over 2% what were the UK numbers ? What I'm trying to work out is, I'd the IMF had baked in a brexit reduction of 2pc into our numbers, then if everyone misses by 2pc.i don't understand your comment that Germany was hindered by Brexit. But if Germany missed by 2pc more than us, then I can see an argument. (Or an argument brexiy shieldws us from shocks) We are of course having a sliding doors discussion. No-one will really know. And given cobid and Ukraine we have quite a lot of other nosie that will effect countries unequally. No yhe IMF didn't bake in leaving the e.u As the uk didn't leave the e.u until 2020. There was no formal agreement to leave the e.u at that point." can you link me up? Feels odd to not have allowed something unless this was pre 2016. Feel free to DM. This thread is going elsewhere | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you." It's from the Brexit obsessed BBC. I'll believe something else thanks. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. It's from the Brexit obsessed BBC. I'll believe something else thanks." PMSL | |||
| |||
"It's about time the normal working people were put first, listened to instead of bending over backwards to appease dogooders and politicians who put themselves first, afraid to admit mistakes, afraid to upset and stand up to protect our manufacturing, jobs, health , education. " Dogooders? Are people doing good causing many issues on the national scale? | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. It's from the Brexit obsessed BBC. I'll believe something else thanks." Might be a bit harsh to call the BBC brexit obsessed in my opinion. What was surprising is that they failed to put the figures into context as has been pointed out by others on this thread. It also contradicts theIr own article from the beginning of this year. I doubt many are under any illusion that the immediate future is going to be tough both here and abroad | |||
"It's about time the normal working people were put first, listened to instead of bending over backwards to appease dogooders and politicians who put themselves first, afraid to admit mistakes, afraid to upset and stand up to protect our manufacturing, jobs, health , education. " Who are these ‘dogooders’ ?? | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. " Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. It's from the Brexit obsessed BBC. I'll believe something else thanks. Might be a bit harsh to call the BBC brexit obsessed in my opinion. What was surprising is that they failed to put the figures into context as has been pointed out by others on this thread. It also contradicts theIr own article from the beginning of this year. I doubt many are under any illusion that the immediate future is going to be tough both here and abroad" It "contradicts" the BBC article because the data has changed since January. Every publication "contradicts" itself in the same way, in that case and have all "failed" to provide the "context" being demanded. Apparently. | |||
"If you follow the data.worldbank link I gave you. You can compare each country. For example. The uk deflator puts our prices in 2021 at 14% higher than at the end of 2017 In Italy this is about 6% and the same with France, Germany 12% But this only comes in 2021 The uk correctly opted to put inflation numbers in in 2020 too to reflect fkr example shipping container prices going up almost 500% and the cost of wood etc and the change of customer buying habits. Inflation. European Union (EU27) average 10.9% Estonia 24.1% Lithuania 22.5% Latvia 22% Hungary 20.7% Czechia 17.8% Netherlands 17.1% Poland 15.7% Bulgaria 15.6% Slovakia 13.6% Romania 13.4% Croatia 12.6% Belgium 12.1% Greece 12.1% Denmark 11.1% Austria 10.9% Germany 10.9% Slovenia 10.6% UK 10.2% USA 7.7% We really should stop whinging " You seem to have left a few EU countries off that list, as well as the rest of the G7. Inflation isn't the only point being discussed though, so saying that we have slightly lower inflation than some EU countries for a given month doesn't really tell us that much, does it? How is understanding what is happening and how we might learn from others or improve our situation "whinging"? | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about." I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: "International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices." Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... " So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased? | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased?" yea, they know their data. They also know that you should make international comparisons with care. Hence the rest of the paragraph. One can choose how much importance that qualifier is. The BBC have taken the statement without the caveat. I've never called them biased. Newspapers can't add all the caveat in. They can choose whether to report having allowed for any caveats. We are probably near the bottom of the pack. An adjustment won't change the story. Just the headlines. Unfortunately most people don't get past the headline. Many more won't go to source (thanks to Morley for bringing to light this detail) But if Germany is also negative, it may make it harder to immediately jump to brexit (which is suspect played a part). I suspect domeatic COVID policies also played a part. | |||
"Good to see a thread where Remoaners can get back to indulging in their favourite pastime of Britain bashing." I'm so sure on the labour shortage as we have more and more people coming into he country and the population is growing more than ever. Maybe a refusal to work for minimal wage return is a problem in this country. | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased?yea, they know their data. They also know that you should make international comparisons with care. Hence the rest of the paragraph. One can choose how much importance that qualifier is. The BBC have taken the statement without the caveat. I've never called them biased. Newspapers can't add all the caveat in. They can choose whether to report having allowed for any caveats. We are probably near the bottom of the pack. An adjustment won't change the story. Just the headlines. Unfortunately most people don't get past the headline. Many more won't go to source (thanks to Morley for bringing to light this detail) But if Germany is also negative, it may make it harder to immediately jump to brexit (which is suspect played a part). I suspect domeatic COVID policies also played a part. " The point I am making is that this BBC piece is no more biased than those reporting the same data from all of the other publications that I listed who also include no caveat. Alternatively they are all biased, including the House of Commons Library. Why does the BBC have to include this caveat? Their articles are no shorter. Why are they being more misleading than anyone else? If the ONS states that the UK is the only G7 country not to recover to pre-Covid levels, why can't the BBC quote that without a caveat if everyone else can? I'm not following the logic. Brexit is only one of many reasons mentioned in the article. This all seems to be obsessing with a detail relative to the overall purpose of the article, which is no different to other articles on the same topic from other organisations. What am I missing? | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased?yea, they know their data. They also know that you should make international comparisons with care. Hence the rest of the paragraph. One can choose how much importance that qualifier is. The BBC have taken the statement without the caveat. I've never called them biased. Newspapers can't add all the caveat in. They can choose whether to report having allowed for any caveats. We are probably near the bottom of the pack. An adjustment won't change the story. Just the headlines. Unfortunately most people don't get past the headline. Many more won't go to source (thanks to Morley for bringing to light this detail) But if Germany is also negative, it may make it harder to immediately jump to brexit (which is suspect played a part). I suspect domeatic COVID policies also played a part. The point I am making is that this BBC piece is no more biased than those reporting the same data from all of the other publications that I listed who also include no caveat. Alternatively they are all biased, including the House of Commons Library. Why does the BBC have to include this caveat? Their articles are no shorter. Why are they being more misleading than anyone else? If the ONS states that the UK is the only G7 country not to recover to pre-Covid levels, why can't the BBC quote that without a caveat if everyone else can? I'm not following the logic. Brexit is only one of many reasons mentioned in the article. This all seems to be obsessing with a detail relative to the overall purpose of the article, which is no different to other articles on the same topic from other organisations. What am I missing?" I'm not claiming bias. But in an article asking "why the difference" shouldnt they talk about differences in methods ? Is it a detail if it provides part of the answer? FT and Bloomberg look to be more factual reporting. Not asking questions. So it's not the beeb that is being asked to hold itseldf to a different accord, but the nature of the article. One may say that the difference in approach is useful information. It appears you disagree. (I'm assuming you don't believe it is useful. Rather than isn't information) I've found the discussion interesting. A welcome change to have links, original sources and data. | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased?yea, they know their data. They also know that you should make international comparisons with care. Hence the rest of the paragraph. One can choose how much importance that qualifier is. The BBC have taken the statement without the caveat. I've never called them biased. Newspapers can't add all the caveat in. They can choose whether to report having allowed for any caveats. We are probably near the bottom of the pack. An adjustment won't change the story. Just the headlines. Unfortunately most people don't get past the headline. Many more won't go to source (thanks to Morley for bringing to light this detail) But if Germany is also negative, it may make it harder to immediately jump to brexit (which is suspect played a part). I suspect domeatic COVID policies also played a part. The point I am making is that this BBC piece is no more biased than those reporting the same data from all of the other publications that I listed who also include no caveat. Alternatively they are all biased, including the House of Commons Library. Why does the BBC have to include this caveat? Their articles are no shorter. Why are they being more misleading than anyone else? If the ONS states that the UK is the only G7 country not to recover to pre-Covid levels, why can't the BBC quote that without a caveat if everyone else can? I'm not following the logic. Brexit is only one of many reasons mentioned in the article. This all seems to be obsessing with a detail relative to the overall purpose of the article, which is no different to other articles on the same topic from other organisations. What am I missing? I'm not claiming bias. But in an article asking "why the difference" shouldnt they talk about differences in methods ? Is it a detail if it provides part of the answer? FT and Bloomberg look to be more factual reporting. Not asking questions. So it's not the beeb that is being asked to hold itseldf to a different accord, but the nature of the article. One may say that the difference in approach is useful information. It appears you disagree. (I'm assuming you don't believe it is useful. Rather than isn't information) I've found the discussion interesting. A welcome change to have links, original sources and data. "Actually, this is what I am objecting to: "Faisal sadly is a strong remainer and can't put bias aside" I don't think that any of the information in this thread supports that assertion. I didn't say that the information was not useful. The factual reporting of the FT and Bloomberg still make the same point about the UK being the only G7 country not having recovered to pre-Covid levels. That is the current data, recalculated or not. They do not state that the deflator is different either. Neither does the Daily Telegraph article which asks the same question as the BBC one. The ONS makes a direct statement, and if you take that starting point based on what we all appear to accept is high quality data, why would you begin by questioning the data? Isn't it reasonable to try to explain why the stated outcome is what it is? | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased?yea, they know their data. They also know that you should make international comparisons with care. Hence the rest of the paragraph. One can choose how much importance that qualifier is. The BBC have taken the statement without the caveat. I've never called them biased. Newspapers can't add all the caveat in. They can choose whether to report having allowed for any caveats. We are probably near the bottom of the pack. An adjustment won't change the story. Just the headlines. Unfortunately most people don't get past the headline. Many more won't go to source (thanks to Morley for bringing to light this detail) But if Germany is also negative, it may make it harder to immediately jump to brexit (which is suspect played a part). I suspect domeatic COVID policies also played a part. The point I am making is that this BBC piece is no more biased than those reporting the same data from all of the other publications that I listed who also include no caveat. Alternatively they are all biased, including the House of Commons Library. Why does the BBC have to include this caveat? Their articles are no shorter. Why are they being more misleading than anyone else? If the ONS states that the UK is the only G7 country not to recover to pre-Covid levels, why can't the BBC quote that without a caveat if everyone else can? I'm not following the logic. Brexit is only one of many reasons mentioned in the article. This all seems to be obsessing with a detail relative to the overall purpose of the article, which is no different to other articles on the same topic from other organisations. What am I missing? I'm not claiming bias. But in an article asking "why the difference" shouldnt they talk about differences in methods ? Is it a detail if it provides part of the answer? FT and Bloomberg look to be more factual reporting. Not asking questions. So it's not the beeb that is being asked to hold itseldf to a different accord, but the nature of the article. One may say that the difference in approach is useful information. It appears you disagree. (I'm assuming you don't believe it is useful. Rather than isn't information) I've found the discussion interesting. A welcome change to have links, original sources and data.
Actually, this is what I am objecting to:
"Faisal sadly is a strong remainer and can't put bias aside"
I don't think that any of the information in this thread supports that assertion.
I didn't say that the information was not useful.
The factual reporting of the FT and Bloomberg still make the same point about the UK being the only G7 country not having recovered to pre-Covid levels. That is the current data, recalculated or not. They do not state that the deflator is different either.
Neither does the Daily Telegraph article which asks the same question as the BBC one.
The ONS makes a direct statement, and if you take that starting point based on what we all appear to accept is high quality data, why would you begin by questioning the data? Isn't it reasonable to try to explain why the stated outcome is what it is?"okay, in a long thread like this, I think what you objeted to got lost. It appeared to me you were picking his information. Noone is questioning the ONS data for the UK. Just the ability to compare with Germany. Or at least, start to discuss the differences. Do you agree that Germany have a different approach that makes it difficult to compare like for like ? And that a like for like approach could see Germany be behind 2019 numbers? | |||
| |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased?yea, they know their data. They also know that you should make international comparisons with care. Hence the rest of the paragraph. One can choose how much importance that qualifier is. The BBC have taken the statement without the caveat. I've never called them biased. Newspapers can't add all the caveat in. They can choose whether to report having allowed for any caveats. We are probably near the bottom of the pack. An adjustment won't change the story. Just the headlines. Unfortunately most people don't get past the headline. Many more won't go to source (thanks to Morley for bringing to light this detail) But if Germany is also negative, it may make it harder to immediately jump to brexit (which is suspect played a part). I suspect domeatic COVID policies also played a part. The point I am making is that this BBC piece is no more biased than those reporting the same data from all of the other publications that I listed who also include no caveat. Alternatively they are all biased, including the House of Commons Library. Why does the BBC have to include this caveat? Their articles are no shorter. Why are they being more misleading than anyone else? If the ONS states that the UK is the only G7 country not to recover to pre-Covid levels, why can't the BBC quote that without a caveat if everyone else can? I'm not following the logic. Brexit is only one of many reasons mentioned in the article. This all seems to be obsessing with a detail relative to the overall purpose of the article, which is no different to other articles on the same topic from other organisations. What am I missing? I'm not claiming bias. But in an article asking "why the difference" shouldnt they talk about differences in methods ? Is it a detail if it provides part of the answer? FT and Bloomberg look to be more factual reporting. Not asking questions. So it's not the beeb that is being asked to hold itseldf to a different accord, but the nature of the article. One may say that the difference in approach is useful information. It appears you disagree. (I'm assuming you don't believe it is useful. Rather than isn't information) I've found the discussion interesting. A welcome change to have links, original sources and data.
Actually, this is what I am objecting to:
"Faisal sadly is a strong remainer and can't put bias aside"
I don't think that any of the information in this thread supports that assertion.
I didn't say that the information was not useful.
The factual reporting of the FT and Bloomberg still make the same point about the UK being the only G7 country not having recovered to pre-Covid levels. That is the current data, recalculated or not. They do not state that the deflator is different either.
Neither does the Daily Telegraph article which asks the same question as the BBC one.
The ONS makes a direct statement, and if you take that starting point based on what we all appear to accept is high quality data, why would you begin by questioning the data? Isn't it reasonable to try to explain why the stated outcome is what it is?okay, in a long thread like this, I think what you objeted to got lost. It appeared to me you were picking his information.
Noone is questioning the ONS data for the UK. Just the ability to compare with Germany. Or at least, start to discuss the differences.
Do you agree that Germany have a different approach that makes it difficult to compare like for like ? And that a like for like approach could see Germany be behind 2019 numbers? "Different approaches, yes and comparisons complicated. The ONS does say that we are the only G7 country to not recover to pre-Covid levels though, don't they? Are they incorrect to state that? Could journey be below 2019 figures? Yes. Could it be above? Yes. Is German GDP likely higher relative to 2019 than the UK? If you were writing an article and the ONS had stated that, would you start by doubting that assessment or taking it to be true? Having said that the piece is biased then claiming that the following discussion was not derived from motivated thinking? Questioning the BBC starting point when it is what the ONS states multiple times and what others are allowed to accept without caveats is what I'm questioning. The article itself gives its reasons, as does the Daily Telegraph also starting with the same data with no caveats. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/11/11/britains-weak-economic-recovery-means-faces-longer-recession/ Are they equally "biased" in that case? | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased?yea, they know their data. They also know that you should make international comparisons with care. Hence the rest of the paragraph. One can choose how much importance that qualifier is. The BBC have taken the statement without the caveat. I've never called them biased. Newspapers can't add all the caveat in. They can choose whether to report having allowed for any caveats. We are probably near the bottom of the pack. An adjustment won't change the story. Just the headlines. Unfortunately most people don't get past the headline. Many more won't go to source (thanks to Morley for bringing to light this detail) But if Germany is also negative, it may make it harder to immediately jump to brexit (which is suspect played a part). I suspect domeatic COVID policies also played a part. The point I am making is that this BBC piece is no more biased than those reporting the same data from all of the other publications that I listed who also include no caveat. Alternatively they are all biased, including the House of Commons Library. Why does the BBC have to include this caveat? Their articles are no shorter. Why are they being more misleading than anyone else? If the ONS states that the UK is the only G7 country not to recover to pre-Covid levels, why can't the BBC quote that without a caveat if everyone else can? I'm not following the logic. Brexit is only one of many reasons mentioned in the article. This all seems to be obsessing with a detail relative to the overall purpose of the article, which is no different to other articles on the same topic from other organisations. What am I missing? I'm not claiming bias. But in an article asking "why the difference" shouldnt they talk about differences in methods ? Is it a detail if it provides part of the answer? FT and Bloomberg look to be more factual reporting. Not asking questions. So it's not the beeb that is being asked to hold itseldf to a different accord, but the nature of the article. One may say that the difference in approach is useful information. It appears you disagree. (I'm assuming you don't believe it is useful. Rather than isn't information) I've found the discussion interesting. A welcome change to have links, original sources and data.
Actually, this is what I am objecting to:
"Faisal sadly is a strong remainer and can't put bias aside"
I don't think that any of the information in this thread supports that assertion.
I didn't say that the information was not useful.
The factual reporting of the FT and Bloomberg still make the same point about the UK being the only G7 country not having recovered to pre-Covid levels. That is the current data, recalculated or not. They do not state that the deflator is different either.
Neither does the Daily Telegraph article which asks the same question as the BBC one.
The ONS makes a direct statement, and if you take that starting point based on what we all appear to accept is high quality data, why would you begin by questioning the data? Isn't it reasonable to try to explain why the stated outcome is what it is?okay, in a long thread like this, I think what you objeted to got lost. It appeared to me you were picking his information.
Noone is questioning the ONS data for the UK. Just the ability to compare with Germany. Or at least, start to discuss the differences.
Do you agree that Germany have a different approach that makes it difficult to compare like for like ? And that a like for like approach could see Germany be behind 2019 numbers?
Different approaches, yes and comparisons complicated.
The ONS does say that we are the only G7 country to not recover to pre-Covid levels though, don't they? Are they incorrect to state that?
Could journey be below 2019 figures? Yes. Could it be above? Yes. Is German GDP likely higher relative to 2019 than the UK?
If you were writing an article and the ONS had stated that, would you start by doubting that assessment or taking it to be true?
Having said that the piece is biased then claiming that the following discussion was not derived from motivated thinking?
Questioning the BBC starting point when it is what the ONS states multiple times and what others are allowed to accept without caveats is what I'm questioning.
The article itself gives its reasons, as does the Daily Telegraph also starting with the same data with no caveats.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/11/11/britains-weak-economic-recovery-means-faces-longer-recession/
Are they equally "biased" in that case?"I'm not questioning the BBC's starting point. Based on the data we have the UK is the only country not to have recovered. We agree on this. People reporting what the ONS has says can quote this. That's fine. We agree on this. However, when discussing the reasons why this is the case, you don't seem to see that the diffence in approaches is relevant and could play a part in why we look worse. I do. And as such, I would have liked that to have been in the BBC article as I didn't appreciate it until it wa appointed out here. My view of the reasons for out underperformance has become more complex since this thread started. It feels like you have seen no new information that has caused any difference in your veiw. That's fine. And so I can see why you don't see the extra caveats as being helpful. I don't believe the BBC left it out because of bias. And I suspect they saw figures that told a story, and ran with it. As did others. However they took a slightly different angle. It is this angle that is important. I'm guessing either you don't see the same difference in approach I do, or don't see it as being as significant. Again, that's fine. But means we aren't wvery going to agree here... In my view an article that is explaining the difference between two numbers should explain how consistent the numbers are. An article just reporting on a paper didn't have too. (although possibly should have to avoid false conclusions being made). | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased?yea, they know their data. They also know that you should make international comparisons with care. Hence the rest of the paragraph. One can choose how much importance that qualifier is. The BBC have taken the statement without the caveat. I've never called them biased. Newspapers can't add all the caveat in. They can choose whether to report having allowed for any caveats. We are probably near the bottom of the pack. An adjustment won't change the story. Just the headlines. Unfortunately most people don't get past the headline. Many more won't go to source (thanks to Morley for bringing to light this detail) But if Germany is also negative, it may make it harder to immediately jump to brexit (which is suspect played a part). I suspect domeatic COVID policies also played a part. The point I am making is that this BBC piece is no more biased than those reporting the same data from all of the other publications that I listed who also include no caveat. Alternatively they are all biased, including the House of Commons Library. Why does the BBC have to include this caveat? Their articles are no shorter. Why are they being more misleading than anyone else? If the ONS states that the UK is the only G7 country not to recover to pre-Covid levels, why can't the BBC quote that without a caveat if everyone else can? I'm not following the logic. Brexit is only one of many reasons mentioned in the article. This all seems to be obsessing with a detail relative to the overall purpose of the article, which is no different to other articles on the same topic from other organisations. What am I missing? I'm not claiming bias. But in an article asking "why the difference" shouldnt they talk about differences in methods ? Is it a detail if it provides part of the answer? FT and Bloomberg look to be more factual reporting. Not asking questions. So it's not the beeb that is being asked to hold itseldf to a different accord, but the nature of the article. One may say that the difference in approach is useful information. It appears you disagree. (I'm assuming you don't believe it is useful. Rather than isn't information) I've found the discussion interesting. A welcome change to have links, original sources and data.
Actually, this is what I am objecting to:
"Faisal sadly is a strong remainer and can't put bias aside"
I don't think that any of the information in this thread supports that assertion.
I didn't say that the information was not useful.
The factual reporting of the FT and Bloomberg still make the same point about the UK being the only G7 country not having recovered to pre-Covid levels. That is the current data, recalculated or not. They do not state that the deflator is different either.
Neither does the Daily Telegraph article which asks the same question as the BBC one.
The ONS makes a direct statement, and if you take that starting point based on what we all appear to accept is high quality data, why would you begin by questioning the data? Isn't it reasonable to try to explain why the stated outcome is what it is?okay, in a long thread like this, I think what you objeted to got lost. It appeared to me you were picking his information.
Noone is questioning the ONS data for the UK. Just the ability to compare with Germany. Or at least, start to discuss the differences.
Do you agree that Germany have a different approach that makes it difficult to compare like for like ? And that a like for like approach could see Germany be behind 2019 numbers?
Different approaches, yes and comparisons complicated.
The ONS does say that we are the only G7 country to not recover to pre-Covid levels though, don't they? Are they incorrect to state that?
Could journey be below 2019 figures? Yes. Could it be above? Yes. Is German GDP likely higher relative to 2019 than the UK?
If you were writing an article and the ONS had stated that, would you start by doubting that assessment or taking it to be true?
Having said that the piece is biased then claiming that the following discussion was not derived from motivated thinking?
Questioning the BBC starting point when it is what the ONS states multiple times and what others are allowed to accept without caveats is what I'm questioning.
The article itself gives its reasons, as does the Daily Telegraph also starting with the same data with no caveats.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/11/11/britains-weak-economic-recovery-means-faces-longer-recession/
Are they equally "biased" in that case?I'm not questioning the BBC's starting point.
Based on the data we have the UK is the only country not to have recovered. We agree on this.
People reporting what the ONS has says can quote this. That's fine. We agree on this.
However, when discussing the reasons why this is the case, you don't seem to see that the diffence in approaches is relevant and could play a part in why we look worse. I do. And as such, I would have liked that to have been in the BBC article as I didn't appreciate it until it wa appointed out here.
My view of the reasons for out underperformance has become more complex since this thread started. It feels like you have seen no new information that has caused any difference in your veiw. That's fine. And so I can see why you don't see the extra caveats as being helpful.
I don't believe the BBC left it out because of bias. And I suspect they saw figures that told a story, and ran with it. As did others. However they took a slightly different angle. It is this angle that is important. I'm guessing either you don't see the same difference in approach I do, or don't see it as being as significant. Again, that's fine. But means we aren't wvery going to agree here...
In my view an article that is explaining the difference between two numbers should explain how consistent the numbers are. An article just reporting on a paper didn't have too. (although possibly should have to avoid false conclusions being made). "I don't really know why you keep telling me that I don't understand or accept that there are differences in approach that could lead to different interpretations. Where have I said that? What I said that the ONS is comparing consistent data in drawing their conclusion about the UK GDP performance. It's not down to a mathematical mistake that they've missed. I know that you aren't saying that. I'm just making a point. The ONS, with it's understanding of the data, stated clearly and deliberately that we were the only country not to recover To pre-Covid levels. Again, not an offhand statement. So, whatever the complication, the point stands and it seems to be reasonable to start any article based on that premise. It took several posts, links and a lot of time and effort to explain the differences on calculation. Would this be helpful in a short news article? I would agree that the actual information shared was quite useful and interesting. That would be an article in itself. Regardless, the information was not presented in good faith. It was to prove an accusation of journalistic bias, which simply doesn't stand up when compared to other articles. The Telegraph was on exactly the same topic and much longer. | |||
"Easy uk. I think what you have done is greatly misunderstand the point being made. The uk data was previously that we had recovered. It's not saying we haven't because of the blue book inflation revision. I am saying. Other clutnries have choaen( incorrectly) not to revise their inflation for 2020 and 2021. The uk has chosen to do this as best practice. When you know your calculations are wrong. You correct them. Germany as my prime example. Knows its calculations are wrong. But has not amended them. I think what I have done is ignore your motivated reasoning. The figures for the UK have been changed consistently with each other. Pre and post COVID figures have been changed in the same way. The old figures showed us having recovered from pte-Covid. The new figures show us not having recovered. The article used the latest data. There's no reason to state that they were different once. You cannot explain how or why yourself and are unable, or unwilling, to state if you believe that the new data is more or less accurate. Other countries are also using consistent data which may or may not be changed. You don't know by how much they vary from the UK calculation. The only point you seem to be making is that all economic data is complex subject to change as better information becomes available. So the conclusion is that either you ignore everything and just believe what you want to or you accept various expert interpretations of complex data and form an opinion. So, what is the contrary evaluation of the data presented in this article? There's no motivated reason. Simply facts as to what occurred. Thepre covid measurement wasn't changed. That is in the ONS report I sent. They changed 2020-2022 You are mot reading the links clearly. Which sad. I have already stated. The new data is more accurate. In fact its world leading. As we follow oecd comparability compliance whereas every other g7 nation does not. So in actual fact I am grateful the ONS measures more accurately and adjusted the prior figures. I am let down the other nations do not. As I stated. I dont think you understand the concept. Which is becoming clearer with every post. I am afraid the only one who can't see the wood for the trees is you. Rather than you looping around and continuing to explain how complicated everything is and why context is needed and why nobody else gets it let's make it really, really simple. You agree that the ONDS has done a great job in calculating these figures, really understands them very well and has clearly explained the context. In that case why have they written: "The UK is the only G7 economy to not have yet recovered to pre-coronavirus levels of real GDP" "The level of real GDP is now estimated to be 0.2% below where it was pre-coronavirus at Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2019, downwardly revised from previous estimates of 0.6% above." What do you want to tell us about the post-Covid UK economic recovery in the G7 that neither the ONS, The FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, the House of Commons, The Telegraph (!) and the The Institute for Fiscal Studies gets? Why is the BBC account "biased", but not a host of other publications? Who explains how the UK is actually doing as well or better than the rest of the G7 to your satisfaction? That's what the article is actually about.I suspect it's the next bit Morley is focussiong on: International comparisons In real terms, the UK is the only G7 economy yet to recover above its pre-coronavirus pandemic level in Quarter 4 2019. Our recent article on the Impact of Blue Book 2022 noted that the UK, France and the United States are the only countries in the G7 to have estimated the economic effect of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through the Supply and Use Tables (SUT) framework, which looks at the supply of goods and services on a very detailed level, how they are used in the economy, and their associated prices. Thia adjustment knocked of 1pc ish. Such an adjustment would take Germany under. However I don't have the understanding to know if the change would be similar for all countries... So a detail (that may or may not lead to Germany also performing less well) that allows the overall point of the article to be ignored? The ONS still states that the UK is the only country not to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Do they not understand their own data? The BBC reports this no differently to any other news organisation. Why is only the BBC biased?yea, they know their data. They also know that you should make international comparisons with care. Hence the rest of the paragraph. One can choose how much importance that qualifier is. The BBC have taken the statement without the caveat. I've never called them biased. Newspapers can't add all the caveat in. They can choose whether to report having allowed for any caveats. We are probably near the bottom of the pack. An adjustment won't change the story. Just the headlines. Unfortunately most people don't get past the headline. Many more won't go to source (thanks to Morley for bringing to light this detail) But if Germany is also negative, it may make it harder to immediately jump to brexit (which is suspect played a part). I suspect domeatic COVID policies also played a part. The point I am making is that this BBC piece is no more biased than those reporting the same data from all of the other publications that I listed who also include no caveat. Alternatively they are all biased, including the House of Commons Library. Why does the BBC have to include this caveat? Their articles are no shorter. Why are they being more misleading than anyone else? If the ONS states that the UK is the only G7 country not to recover to pre-Covid levels, why can't the BBC quote that without a caveat if everyone else can? I'm not following the logic. Brexit is only one of many reasons mentioned in the article. This all seems to be obsessing with a detail relative to the overall purpose of the article, which is no different to other articles on the same topic from other organisations. What am I missing? I'm not claiming bias. But in an article asking "why the difference" shouldnt they talk about differences in methods ? Is it a detail if it provides part of the answer? FT and Bloomberg look to be more factual reporting. Not asking questions. So it's not the beeb that is being asked to hold itseldf to a different accord, but the nature of the article. One may say that the difference in approach is useful information. It appears you disagree. (I'm assuming you don't believe it is useful. Rather than isn't information) I've found the discussion interesting. A welcome change to have links, original sources and data.
Actually, this is what I am objecting to:
"Faisal sadly is a strong remainer and can't put bias aside"
I don't think that any of the information in this thread supports that assertion.
I didn't say that the information was not useful.
The factual reporting of the FT and Bloomberg still make the same point about the UK being the only G7 country not having recovered to pre-Covid levels. That is the current data, recalculated or not. They do not state that the deflator is different either.
Neither does the Daily Telegraph article which asks the same question as the BBC one.
The ONS makes a direct statement, and if you take that starting point based on what we all appear to accept is high quality data, why would you begin by questioning the data? Isn't it reasonable to try to explain why the stated outcome is what it is?okay, in a long thread like this, I think what you objeted to got lost. It appeared to me you were picking his information.
Noone is questioning the ONS data for the UK. Just the ability to compare with Germany. Or at least, start to discuss the differences.
Do you agree that Germany have a different approach that makes it difficult to compare like for like ? And that a like for like approach could see Germany be behind 2019 numbers?
Different approaches, yes and comparisons complicated.
The ONS does say that we are the only G7 country to not recover to pre-Covid levels though, don't they? Are they incorrect to state that?
Could journey be below 2019 figures? Yes. Could it be above? Yes. Is German GDP likely higher relative to 2019 than the UK?
If you were writing an article and the ONS had stated that, would you start by doubting that assessment or taking it to be true?
Having said that the piece is biased then claiming that the following discussion was not derived from motivated thinking?
Questioning the BBC starting point when it is what the ONS states multiple times and what others are allowed to accept without caveats is what I'm questioning.
The article itself gives its reasons, as does the Daily Telegraph also starting with the same data with no caveats.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/11/11/britains-weak-economic-recovery-means-faces-longer-recession/
Are they equally "biased" in that case?I'm not questioning the BBC's starting point.
Based on the data we have the UK is the only country not to have recovered. We agree on this.
People reporting what the ONS has says can quote this. That's fine. We agree on this.
However, when discussing the reasons why this is the case, you don't seem to see that the diffence in approaches is relevant and could play a part in why we look worse. I do. And as such, I would have liked that to have been in the BBC article as I didn't appreciate it until it wa appointed out here.
My view of the reasons for out underperformance has become more complex since this thread started. It feels like you have seen no new information that has caused any difference in your veiw. That's fine. And so I can see why you don't see the extra caveats as being helpful.
I don't believe the BBC left it out because of bias. And I suspect they saw figures that told a story, and ran with it. As did others. However they took a slightly different angle. It is this angle that is important. I'm guessing either you don't see the same difference in approach I do, or don't see it as being as significant. Again, that's fine. But means we aren't wvery going to agree here...
In my view an article that is explaining the difference between two numbers should explain how consistent the numbers are. An article just reporting on a paper didn't have too. (although possibly should have to avoid false conclusions being made).
I don't really know why you keep telling me that I don't understand or accept that there are differences in approach that could lead to different interpretations.
Where have I said that?
What I said that the ONS is comparing consistent data in drawing their conclusion about the UK GDP performance. It's not down to a mathematical mistake that they've missed. I know that you aren't saying that. I'm just making a point.
The ONS, with it's understanding of the data, stated clearly and deliberately that we were the only country not to recover To pre-Covid levels. Again, not an offhand statement.
So, whatever the complication, the point stands and it seems to be reasonable to start any article based on that premise.
It took several posts, links and a lot of time and effort to explain the differences on calculation. Would this be helpful in a short news article?
I would agree that the actual information shared was quite useful and interesting. That would be an article in itself.
Regardless, the information was not presented in good faith. It was to prove an accusation of journalistic bias, which simply doesn't stand up when compared to other articles. The Telegraph was on exactly the same topic and much longer."the telegraph was pay walled. I've found an archive and agree, they should have mentioned it too. If your ire is towards the BBC being called biased, then I'm gonna step away. That's not a corner I'm going to fight. My position has been that I think the BBC (and now the telegraph) have not given enough credence to the technical bit, in order to write an article. It's almost, but not quite, like ignoring confidence intervals and just comparing the average. I hope Morley will be back on line and you can pick up the basis point with him. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you." 1) Brexit cost 4% of GDP - £24 billion 2) Covid wastage that should have been invested via the NHS instead £37 billion test and trace, £11 billion unusable PPE, £2 billion sundry wastage. £50 billion total 3) Truss/Kwarteng budget £30 billion added to cost of Government borrowing. There is £100 billion+ directly at the feet of the Conservative Government. Remember this when you get asked to pay more tax later this week. You are paying for their sheer incompetence. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. 1) Brexit cost 4% of GDP - £24 billion 2) Covid wastage that should have been invested via the NHS instead £37 billion test and trace, £11 billion unusable PPE, £2 billion sundry wastage. £50 billion total 3) Truss/Kwarteng budget £30 billion added to cost of Government borrowing. There is £100 billion+ directly at the feet of the Conservative Government. Remember this when you get asked to pay more tax later this week. You are paying for their sheer incompetence." Too right. You can add over £4bn written off to Covid fraud. Untold £millions in consultancy fees and _iddle man charges for Tory party donors, friends, family, and cronies using the VIP lane to secure very heavily marked up PPE and other Covid related contracts (often registered offshore so no tax collected either - looking at you Baroness Mone and husband). You can also add vanity projects. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Brexit has cost the economy £100bn a year Perpetual state debt now £2,500,000,000,000 Doubled by labour 97-2010 and then trebled by tories Country lives beyond its means, has not invested Manufacturing reduced to 14% gdp Agriculture reduced to 0.59% gdp 1,600,000 on council house waiting lists (1.1m 2010) 6.8 million waiting hospital treatment (5m pre covid) tories plus those before them wasting money: £1,500,000,000,000 added to national debt by tories (trebled in 12 years) £100,000,000,000 annual brexit hit on the economy £37,000,000,000 track and trace £26,000,000,000 extra mortgage interest dumped on households by Truss/Kwarteng £19,000,000,000 Bank of England intervention to rectify truss/Kwarteng policies £11,000,000,000 interest rate insurance negligence by Sunak £9,000,000,000 written off bounce back loans by Sunak £4,900,000,000 written off out of date PPE £4,000,000,000 second large PPE write off £3,200,000,000 annual lost HMRC revenue from 68,200 non doms £1,700,000,000 awarded to 46 preferential VIP tory donors in PPE contracts £850,000,000 eat out to help out £421,000,000 further tranche of written off bounce back loans £125,000,000 on illegal deportation contract to Rwanda £72,000,000 lease of Govt charter plane £53,000,000 garden bridge project written off £25,000,000 annual cost of maintaining 10681 long term empty MOD homes £2,000,000 for Truss's last few months travel expenses as foreign secretary £900,000 Irish sea tunnel feasibility study £900,000 repainting Johnson’s voyager plane £500,000 police cost investigating partygate £500,000 for Sunaks image makeover £320,000 Johnsons London water cannon, sold for £25K scrap £219,703.44 claimed by Lee Anderson for expenses £175,840.71 claimed by Priti Patel for expenses £174,000 spent by Blackpool council on 6 trees £147,943.28 claimed by Will Quince for expenses £115,000 annual allowances for Johnson, Truss + next £62,000 a head in flights to illegally deport seven refugees £3,000 claimed by Liz Truss for private members " Didn’t see this list when I did my last post. This needs bumping so others don’t miss it! | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Brexit has cost the economy £100bn a year Perpetual state debt now £2,500,000,000,000 Doubled by labour 97-2010 and then trebled by tories Country lives beyond its means, has not invested Manufacturing reduced to 14% gdp Agriculture reduced to 0.59% gdp 1,600,000 on council house waiting lists (1.1m 2010) 6.8 million waiting hospital treatment (5m pre covid) tories plus those before them wasting money: £1,500,000,000,000 added to national debt by tories (trebled in 12 years) £100,000,000,000 annual brexit hit on the economy £37,000,000,000 track and trace £26,000,000,000 extra mortgage interest dumped on households by Truss/Kwarteng £19,000,000,000 Bank of England intervention to rectify truss/Kwarteng policies £11,000,000,000 interest rate insurance negligence by Sunak £9,000,000,000 written off bounce back loans by Sunak £4,900,000,000 written off out of date PPE £4,000,000,000 second large PPE write off £3,200,000,000 annual lost HMRC revenue from 68,200 non doms £1,700,000,000 awarded to 46 preferential VIP tory donors in PPE contracts £850,000,000 eat out to help out £421,000,000 further tranche of written off bounce back loans £125,000,000 on illegal deportation contract to Rwanda £72,000,000 lease of Govt charter plane £53,000,000 garden bridge project written off £25,000,000 annual cost of maintaining 10681 long term empty MOD homes £2,000,000 for Truss's last few months travel expenses as foreign secretary £900,000 Irish sea tunnel feasibility study £900,000 repainting Johnson’s voyager plane £500,000 police cost investigating partygate £500,000 for Sunaks image makeover £320,000 Johnsons London water cannon, sold for £25K scrap £219,703.44 claimed by Lee Anderson for expenses £175,840.71 claimed by Priti Patel for expenses £174,000 spent by Blackpool council on 6 trees £147,943.28 claimed by Will Quince for expenses £115,000 annual allowances for Johnson, Truss + next £62,000 a head in flights to illegally deport seven refugees £3,000 claimed by Liz Truss for private members Didn’t see this list when I did my last post. This needs bumping so others don’t miss it!" It sure how much is true but it's certainly depressing reading. How can anyone that elected and supported Boris sleep at night | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Brexit has cost the economy £100bn a year Perpetual state debt now £2,500,000,000,000 Doubled by labour 97-2010 and then trebled by tories Country lives beyond its means, has not invested Manufacturing reduced to 14% gdp Agriculture reduced to 0.59% gdp 1,600,000 on council house waiting lists (1.1m 2010) 6.8 million waiting hospital treatment (5m pre covid) tories plus those before them wasting money: £1,500,000,000,000 added to national debt by tories (trebled in 12 years) £100,000,000,000 annual brexit hit on the economy £37,000,000,000 track and trace £26,000,000,000 extra mortgage interest dumped on households by Truss/Kwarteng £19,000,000,000 Bank of England intervention to rectify truss/Kwarteng policies £11,000,000,000 interest rate insurance negligence by Sunak £9,000,000,000 written off bounce back loans by Sunak £4,900,000,000 written off out of date PPE £4,000,000,000 second large PPE write off £3,200,000,000 annual lost HMRC revenue from 68,200 non doms £1,700,000,000 awarded to 46 preferential VIP tory donors in PPE contracts £850,000,000 eat out to help out £421,000,000 further tranche of written off bounce back loans £125,000,000 on illegal deportation contract to Rwanda £72,000,000 lease of Govt charter plane £53,000,000 garden bridge project written off £25,000,000 annual cost of maintaining 10681 long term empty MOD homes £2,000,000 for Truss's last few months travel expenses as foreign secretary £900,000 Irish sea tunnel feasibility study £900,000 repainting Johnson’s voyager plane £500,000 police cost investigating partygate £500,000 for Sunaks image makeover £320,000 Johnsons London water cannon, sold for £25K scrap £219,703.44 claimed by Lee Anderson for expenses £175,840.71 claimed by Priti Patel for expenses £174,000 spent by Blackpool council on 6 trees £147,943.28 claimed by Will Quince for expenses £115,000 annual allowances for Johnson, Truss + next £62,000 a head in flights to illegally deport seven refugees £3,000 claimed by Liz Truss for private members Didn’t see this list when I did my last post. This needs bumping so others don’t miss it! It sure how much is true but it's certainly depressing reading. How can anyone that elected and supported Boris sleep at night" There has been an inquiry and lessons have been learnt.  | |||
| |||
"The UK's economic clown show is all down to the Tories, analysis confirms former PM Truss and former Chancellor Kwartang were responsible for half the Treasury’s £60bn fiscal hole and the OBR confirms Brexit reduced GDP by 4% representing a £34bn annual revenue loss for the Treasury. So much winning! So the black hole is entirely due to the Conservative government’s incompetence and they want more austerity after 12 years of running the country into the ground - no surprise there then! I have wondered if the economy under the tories has actually grown at all (ignoring the effects of Covid, Brexit,etc)? That largely depends on if you trust places like the OBR and their results. If you do then it has grown, if you don't then its a toss of a coin. I think what a lot of people experience is they see the figures but for them it just does not feel like reality. A friend of mine did digging intot he actual OBR report. It's a set of forecasts from 2018 on expected growth for the next 5 years of the uk. So at best it's finger In the air stuff. The obr put together 13 forecasts from different sources on growth. 1 particular outlier had the us growing 10% more in the e.u than we did. Some of the forecasts used are quite well known sources imf , oecd etc. These ethnically have us about 1-3% off the growth pattern vs 2 of the main outliers. The main problem with this though... Germany and France also missed their imf and oecd targets by the exact same amounts? We they also hindered by the brexit vote? Seemingly so. This is a good breakdown. https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1556587242046590980?t=gvtq5qbwQ9oBQIAsR1zP4w&s=19 Interesting Twitter thread. As ever, I suspect the effects are directionally correct, but some will spin the magnitude. I don't follow your imf point. Did the IMF give us post vtecut targets that we hit, and the Germans missed ? Or did everyone miss their target? So the imf releases its quarterly outturn expectations for each country for the next 2 years at the end of each year it does a 5 year forecast.of what it expects for the g7 countries. Germany for example was expected to grow 4.5% It grew just over 2% what were the UK numbers ? What I'm trying to work out is, I'd the IMF had baked in a brexit reduction of 2pc into our numbers, then if everyone misses by 2pc.i don't understand your comment that Germany was hindered by Brexit. But if Germany missed by 2pc more than us, then I can see an argument. (Or an argument brexiy shieldws us from shocks) We are of course having a sliding doors discussion. No-one will really know. And given cobid and Ukraine we have quite a lot of other nosie that will effect countries unequally. No yhe IMF didn't bake in leaving the e.u As the uk didn't leave the e.u until 2020. There was no formal agreement to leave the e.u at that point.can you link me up? Feels odd to not have allowed something unless this was pre 2016. Feel free to DM. This thread is going elsewhere " This was from a posting on a website where some one asked the IMF uk team how it was forecasting(publicstions@imf.org) Essentially their answer was at the time. They didnt know what brexit would look like ( not all rollovers had occurred and bo withdrawals and then e.u fta agreement reached)so the forecasting was on a continuation of membership basis. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Brexit has cost the economy £100bn a year Perpetual state debt now £2,500,000,000,000 Doubled by labour 97-2010 and then trebled by tories Country lives beyond its means, has not invested Manufacturing reduced to 14% gdp Agriculture reduced to 0.59% gdp 1,600,000 on council house waiting lists (1.1m 2010) 6.8 million waiting hospital treatment (5m pre covid) tories plus those before them wasting money: £1,500,000,000,000 added to national debt by tories (trebled in 12 years) £100,000,000,000 annual brexit hit on the economy £37,000,000,000 track and trace £26,000,000,000 extra mortgage interest dumped on households by Truss/Kwarteng £19,000,000,000 Bank of England intervention to rectify truss/Kwarteng policies £11,000,000,000 interest rate insurance negligence by Sunak £9,000,000,000 written off bounce back loans by Sunak £4,900,000,000 written off out of date PPE £4,000,000,000 second large PPE write off £3,200,000,000 annual lost HMRC revenue from 68,200 non doms £1,700,000,000 awarded to 46 preferential VIP tory donors in PPE contracts £850,000,000 eat out to help out £421,000,000 further tranche of written off bounce back loans £125,000,000 on illegal deportation contract to Rwanda £72,000,000 lease of Govt charter plane £53,000,000 garden bridge project written off £25,000,000 annual cost of maintaining 10681 long term empty MOD homes £2,000,000 for Truss's last few months travel expenses as foreign secretary £900,000 Irish sea tunnel feasibility study £900,000 repainting Johnson’s voyager plane £500,000 police cost investigating partygate £500,000 for Sunaks image makeover £320,000 Johnsons London water cannon, sold for £25K scrap £219,703.44 claimed by Lee Anderson for expenses £175,840.71 claimed by Priti Patel for expenses £174,000 spent by Blackpool council on 6 trees £147,943.28 claimed by Will Quince for expenses £115,000 annual allowances for Johnson, Truss + next £62,000 a head in flights to illegally deport seven refugees £3,000 claimed by Liz Truss for private members Didn’t see this list when I did my last post. This needs bumping so others don’t miss it! It sure how much is true but it's certainly depressing reading. How can anyone that elected and supported Boris sleep at night" Very little is true. And of those that are. There will be context. Some examples of lies We haven't paid Rwanda anything close to 125m. I went over this in another thread and got no reply. E.g expenses claims for example. Indont know what people expect. Mps to pay people put of their own pocket to br office managers ? They earn about 90k a year most Mps expenses are for people to work for them ( the problem for me is when it's nepotism and family members are employed) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Brexit has cost the economy £100bn a year Perpetual state debt now £2,500,000,000,000 Doubled by labour 97-2010 and then trebled by tories Country lives beyond its means, has not invested Manufacturing reduced to 14% gdp Agriculture reduced to 0.59% gdp 1,600,000 on council house waiting lists (1.1m 2010) 6.8 million waiting hospital treatment (5m pre covid) tories plus those before them wasting money: £1,500,000,000,000 added to national debt by tories (trebled in 12 years) £100,000,000,000 annual brexit hit on the economy £37,000,000,000 track and trace £26,000,000,000 extra mortgage interest dumped on households by Truss/Kwarteng £19,000,000,000 Bank of England intervention to rectify truss/Kwarteng policies £11,000,000,000 interest rate insurance negligence by Sunak £9,000,000,000 written off bounce back loans by Sunak £4,900,000,000 written off out of date PPE £4,000,000,000 second large PPE write off £3,200,000,000 annual lost HMRC revenue from 68,200 non doms £1,700,000,000 awarded to 46 preferential VIP tory donors in PPE contracts £850,000,000 eat out to help out £421,000,000 further tranche of written off bounce back loans £125,000,000 on illegal deportation contract to Rwanda £72,000,000 lease of Govt charter plane £53,000,000 garden bridge project written off £25,000,000 annual cost of maintaining 10681 long term empty MOD homes £2,000,000 for Truss's last few months travel expenses as foreign secretary £900,000 Irish sea tunnel feasibility study £900,000 repainting Johnson’s voyager plane £500,000 police cost investigating partygate £500,000 for Sunaks image makeover £320,000 Johnsons London water cannon, sold for £25K scrap £219,703.44 claimed by Lee Anderson for expenses £175,840.71 claimed by Priti Patel for expenses £174,000 spent by Blackpool council on 6 trees £147,943.28 claimed by Will Quince for expenses £115,000 annual allowances for Johnson, Truss + next £62,000 a head in flights to illegally deport seven refugees £3,000 claimed by Liz Truss for private members Didn’t see this list when I did my last post. This needs bumping so others don’t miss it! It sure how much is true but it's certainly depressing reading. How can anyone that elected and supported Boris sleep at night Very little is true. And of those that are. There will be context. Some examples of lies We haven't paid Rwanda anything close to 125m. I went over this in another thread and got no reply. E.g expenses claims for example. Indont know what people expect. Mps to pay people put of their own pocket to br office managers ? They earn about 90k a year most Mps expenses are for people to work for them ( the problem for me is when it's nepotism and family members are employed)" Line-by-line which ones aren’t true? Happy to skip legitimate office expenses for MPs as you are quite right on that. | |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. Brexit has cost the economy £100bn a year Perpetual state debt now £2,500,000,000,000 Doubled by labour 97-2010 and then trebled by tories Country lives beyond its means, has not invested Manufacturing reduced to 14% gdp Agriculture reduced to 0.59% gdp 1,600,000 on council house waiting lists (1.1m 2010) 6.8 million waiting hospital treatment (5m pre covid) tories plus those before them wasting money: £1,500,000,000,000 added to national debt by tories (trebled in 12 years) £100,000,000,000 annual brexit hit on the economy £37,000,000,000 track and trace £26,000,000,000 extra mortgage interest dumped on households by Truss/Kwarteng £19,000,000,000 Bank of England intervention to rectify truss/Kwarteng policies £11,000,000,000 interest rate insurance negligence by Sunak £9,000,000,000 written off bounce back loans by Sunak £4,900,000,000 written off out of date PPE £4,000,000,000 second large PPE write off £3,200,000,000 annual lost HMRC revenue from 68,200 non doms £1,700,000,000 awarded to 46 preferential VIP tory donors in PPE contracts £850,000,000 eat out to help out £421,000,000 further tranche of written off bounce back loans £125,000,000 on illegal deportation contract to Rwanda £72,000,000 lease of Govt charter plane £53,000,000 garden bridge project written off £25,000,000 annual cost of maintaining 10681 long term empty MOD homes £2,000,000 for Truss's last few months travel expenses as foreign secretary £900,000 Irish sea tunnel feasibility study £900,000 repainting Johnson’s voyager plane £500,000 police cost investigating partygate £500,000 for Sunaks image makeover £320,000 Johnsons London water cannon, sold for £25K scrap £219,703.44 claimed by Lee Anderson for expenses £175,840.71 claimed by Priti Patel for expenses £174,000 spent by Blackpool council on 6 trees £147,943.28 claimed by Will Quince for expenses £115,000 annual allowances for Johnson, Truss + next £62,000 a head in flights to illegally deport seven refugees £3,000 claimed by Liz Truss for private members Didn’t see this list when I did my last post. This needs bumping so others don’t miss it! It sure how much is true but it's certainly depressing reading. How can anyone that elected and supported Boris sleep at night Very little is true. And of those that are. There will be context. Some examples of lies We haven't paid Rwanda anything close to 125m. I went over this in another thread and got no reply. E.g expenses claims for example. Indont know what people expect. Mps to pay people put of their own pocket to br office managers ? They earn about 90k a year most Mps expenses are for people to work for them ( the problem for me is when it's nepotism and family members are employed)" I absolutely agree regarding nepotism and the corruption it implies but also the elevation of so many incompetent politicians to the House of Lords is astonishing to me (the rot started with Cameron btw) On a slight return to the main theme though what do you make of the Paris bourse surpassing the London Stock Exchange? That’s rather significant isn’t it? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" ... Who is struggling exactly ? Live your life how you want. If you are struggling ... maybe want to change somethings. 99% of people are not great at managing money or life for that matter. Millions of people are having to use food banks "When I go out it looks to me like millions have never had so much to spend on expensive cars and visits to retail parks. Huge amounts were/are getting blown on Halloween, Guy Fawkes and Christmas crap, and that's not all. What is the 'millions' ratio of the 'haves' versus the 'have nots'? In my day the population was said to be 52 million. What is it now, to put the 'millions' of food bank users into perspective? | |||
| |||
"Uk state debt. 2.5trn yup. Don't know what people want here. You can't have it both ways You either want to print money for corona, lockdown, furlough. Or you dont take extra debt on. The deficit was being tackled and came down to almost a surplus under the tory government. Then corona hit In fact in 2019 I think we did run a surplus. Maybe we should have done what Sweden did after all who knows? One thing is for certain if you wanted lockdown and money printing. You can't complain about public debt and deficit https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis " Morley are you certain when you say... “The deficit was being tackled and came down to almost a surplus under the tory government. Then corona hit In fact in 2019 I think we did run a surplus.” Where are you getting your figures from? The various sources I have seen say... UK Government debt: FY2017/18 = £1.73tn or 80.6% of GDP FY2018/19 = £1.75tn or 78.4% of GDP FY2029/20 = £1.79tn or 82.7% of GDP | |||
"Uk state debt. 2.5trn yup. Don't know what people want here. You can't have it both ways You either want to print money for corona, lockdown, furlough. Or you dont take extra debt on. The deficit was being tackled and came down to almost a surplus under the tory government. Then corona hit In fact in 2019 I think we did run a surplus. Maybe we should have done what Sweden did after all who knows? One thing is for certain if you wanted lockdown and money printing. You can't complain about public debt and deficit https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis Morley are you certain when you say... “The deficit was being tackled and came down to almost a surplus under the tory government. Then corona hit In fact in 2019 I think we did run a surplus.” Where are you getting your figures from? The various sources I have seen say... UK Government debt: FY2017/18 = £1.73tn or 80.6% of GDP FY2018/19 = £1.75tn or 78.4% of GDP FY2029/20 = £1.79tn or 82.7% of GDP" *FY2019/20 obv | |||
"Uk state debt. 2.5trn yup. Don't know what people want here. You can't have it both ways You either want to print money for corona, lockdown, furlough. Or you dont take extra debt on. The deficit was being tackled and came down to almost a surplus under the tory government. Then corona hit In fact in 2019 I think we did run a surplus. Maybe we should have done what Sweden did after all who knows? One thing is for certain if you wanted lockdown and money printing. You can't complain about public debt and deficit https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis Morley are you certain when you say... “The deficit was being tackled and came down to almost a surplus under the tory government. Then corona hit In fact in 2019 I think we did run a surplus.” Where are you getting your figures from? The various sources I have seen say... UK Government debt: FY2017/18 = £1.73tn or 80.6% of GDP FY2018/19 = £1.75tn or 78.4% of GDP FY2029/20 = £1.79tn or 82.7% of GDP" Deficit and debt. There's a difference. Feel free to look it up. You've made the classic mistake | |||
"Uk state debt. 2.5trn yup. Don't know what people want here. You can't have it both ways You either want to print money for corona, lockdown, furlough. Or you dont take extra debt on. The deficit was being tackled and came down to almost a surplus under the tory government. Then corona hit In fact in 2019 I think we did run a surplus. Maybe we should have done what Sweden did after all who knows? One thing is for certain if you wanted lockdown and money printing. You can't complain about public debt and deficit https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis Morley are you certain when you say... “The deficit was being tackled and came down to almost a surplus under the tory government. Then corona hit In fact in 2019 I think we did run a surplus.” Where are you getting your figures from? The various sources I have seen say... UK Government debt: FY2017/18 = £1.73tn or 80.6% of GDP FY2018/19 = £1.75tn or 78.4% of GDP FY2029/20 = £1.79tn or 82.7% of GDP Deficit and debt. There's a difference. Feel free to look it up. You've made the classic mistake" Ah yes fair enough my bad. The way you positioned your statement seemed like you were implying good stewardship of public finances whereas when compared to overall govt debt levels in the same period, which continued to grow, it paints a different picture. | |||
| |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167" have you mentioned this article because of the brexit bias element as it's not clear... My first reaction is you are trying to prove that it shouldn't ever be mentioned. But I realise I sometimes don't see the point you are trying to make and address a different one. | |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167have you mentioned this article because of the brexit bias element as it's not clear... My first reaction is you are trying to prove that it shouldn't ever be mentioned. But I realise I sometimes don't see the point you are trying to make and address a different one. " Actually I'm making the point that Andrew Bailey quotes the GDP recovery figures without providing the full background on how they are calculated in different ways and may or may not be comparable depending on the colour of your eyes... Obviously I may be teasing about the last part, but this is about the insistence that the complete explanation about every aspect of a topic must be given before explaining a broad point. From your previous comments he must surely be wrong to do this... | |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167have you mentioned this article because of the brexit bias element as it's not clear... My first reaction is you are trying to prove that it shouldn't ever be mentioned. But I realise I sometimes don't see the point you are trying to make and address a different one. Actually I'm making the point that Andrew Bailey quotes the GDP recovery figures without providing the full background on how they are calculated in different ways and may or may not be comparable depending on the colour of your eyes... Obviously I may be teasing about the last part, but this is about the insistence that the complete explanation about every aspect of a topic must be given before explaining a broad point. From your previous comments he must surely be wrong to do this..." okay, we are talking about this now.
tbf he seemed to focus at the difference in UK versus Us, and the US have adopted the newer approach.
Had he spent time looking at UK v EU, id hope he'd spend time explaining differences in methodologies, yes.
He may have chosen not to. That's his decision and I'd would have been disappointed. Especially given it was a select committee.
There is no one agreed way of measuring gdp nor inflation. Its all just an attempt to measure something that is difficult to measure. I think that should be recognised as part of any perfomance attribution.
You can still get to "we are bottom or close to bottom of the pack" even allowing for potential differences in measurements. And then we can look at why, as Bailey does with the US.
I get why people don't include it It's complicated, it loses people. It doesn't really change the gist of the story.
If it was included would you say that would have been the wrong decision ? | |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167have you mentioned this article because of the brexit bias element as it's not clear... My first reaction is you are trying to prove that it shouldn't ever be mentioned. But I realise I sometimes don't see the point you are trying to make and address a different one. Actually I'm making the point that Andrew Bailey quotes the GDP recovery figures without providing the full background on how they are calculated in different ways and may or may not be comparable depending on the colour of your eyes... Obviously I may be teasing about the last part, but this is about the insistence that the complete explanation about every aspect of a topic must be given before explaining a broad point. From your previous comments he must surely be wrong to do this...okay, we are talking about this now.
tbf he seemed to focus at the difference in UK versus Us, and the US have adopted the newer approach.
Had he spent time looking at UK v EU, id hope he'd spend time explaining differences in methodologies, yes.
He may have chosen not to. That's his decision and I'd would have been disappointed. Especially given it was a select committee.
There is no one agreed way of measuring gdp nor inflation. Its all just an attempt to measure something that is difficult to measure. I think that should be recognised as part of any perfomance attribution.
You can still get to "we are bottom or close to bottom of the pack" even allowing for potential differences in measurements. And then we can look at why, as Bailey does with the US.
I get why people don't include it It's complicated, it loses people. It doesn't really change the gist of the story.
If it was included would you say that would have been the wrong decision ? "That's the point. It was apparently vital and hugely misleading in one case to use the data as given for the basis of a discussion, but in another it's perfectly reasonable. One a distraction, one needed. Both giving the reasons for the UK performing so badly economically. The detail of the calculating differences aren't the point. They are an interesting detail. Perhaps it seemed so important because it was made the focus of this thread? A distraction from the actual focus that we need to define why the UK is performing so poorly before we can fix it? Definitely nothing to do with Brexit because of bias though... I actually posted the article because it seemed like a genuine attempt to identify the reasons. Brexit just in the mix, amongst other things. | |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167have you mentioned this article because of the brexit bias element as it's not clear... My first reaction is you are trying to prove that it shouldn't ever be mentioned. But I realise I sometimes don't see the point you are trying to make and address a different one. Actually I'm making the point that Andrew Bailey quotes the GDP recovery figures without providing the full background on how they are calculated in different ways and may or may not be comparable depending on the colour of your eyes... Obviously I may be teasing about the last part, but this is about the insistence that the complete explanation about every aspect of a topic must be given before explaining a broad point. From your previous comments he must surely be wrong to do this...okay, we are talking about this now.
tbf he seemed to focus at the difference in UK versus Us, and the US have adopted the newer approach.
Had he spent time looking at UK v EU, id hope he'd spend time explaining differences in methodologies, yes.
He may have chosen not to. That's his decision and I'd would have been disappointed. Especially given it was a select committee.
There is no one agreed way of measuring gdp nor inflation. Its all just an attempt to measure something that is difficult to measure. I think that should be recognised as part of any perfomance attribution.
You can still get to "we are bottom or close to bottom of the pack" even allowing for potential differences in measurements. And then we can look at why, as Bailey does with the US.
I get why people don't include it It's complicated, it loses people. It doesn't really change the gist of the story.
If it was included would you say that would have been the wrong decision ?
That's the point. It was apparently vital and hugely misleading in one case to use the data as given for the basis of a discussion, but in another it's perfectly reasonable. One a distraction, one needed. Both giving the reasons for the UK performing so badly economically.
The detail of the calculating differences aren't the point. They are an interesting detail.
Perhaps it seemed so important because it was made the focus of this thread?
A distraction from the actual focus that we need to define why the UK is performing so poorly before we can fix it?
Definitely nothing to do with Brexit because of bias though...
I actually posted the article because it seemed like a genuine attempt to identify the reasons. Brexit just in the mix, amongst other things."you see it as in interesting detail. I see it as part of the analysis. We disagree here. I'd like to know how much part of the delta it accounts for. I don't follow your first statement. It should (imo) form part of UK versus EU (excl France). It needn't form part of UK versus us or uk versus France. I'm not sure where you feel I've been inconsistent. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you." The answer goes back to well before Brexit ( although it certainly does not help). London aside, the country has performed poorly relative to other countries in terms of GDP, productivity for years( hate to say it but especially in the last 12 years and I have normally voted conservative but not since Brexit). Poor and inconsistent government policy and a lack of investment has meant we are falling behind other countries. Our foreign direct investment rates are appalling relative to other countries We should be the European base for a lot of tech and pharmaceutical firms . The reason they base in Ireland is not tax anymore(prior to 2008 yes maybe but laws hand rates have been tightened since) but membership of the EU and a highly skilled workforce and stable government ( which have all been coalition’s- so you can have stability with coalition’s). The Tories were historically the party for businesses, Boris was right….. they don’t give a f?!k about businesses anymore | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. The answer goes back to well before Brexit ( although it certainly does not help). London aside, the country has performed poorly relative to other countries in terms of GDP, productivity for years( hate to say it but especially in the last 12 years and I have normally voted conservative but not since Brexit). Poor and inconsistent government policy and a lack of investment has meant we are falling behind other countries. Our foreign direct investment rates are appalling relative to other countries We should be the European base for a lot of tech and pharmaceutical firms . The reason they base in Ireland is not tax anymore(prior to 2008 yes maybe but laws hand rates have been tightened since) but membership of the EU and a highly skilled workforce and stable government ( which have all been coalition’s- so you can have stability with coalition’s). The Tories were historically the party for businesses, Boris was right….. they don’t give a f?!k about businesses anymore " I think the mistake a lot of Tory voters have made (not you) is thinking this is still the same Tory party from the 80s and 90s. It isn’t! In many ways almost unrecognisable. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. The answer goes back to well before Brexit ( although it certainly does not help). London aside, the country has performed poorly relative to other countries in terms of GDP, productivity for years( hate to say it but especially in the last 12 years and I have normally voted conservative but not since Brexit). Poor and inconsistent government policy and a lack of investment has meant we are falling behind other countries. Our foreign direct investment rates are appalling relative to other countries We should be the European base for a lot of tech and pharmaceutical firms . The reason they base in Ireland is not tax anymore(prior to 2008 yes maybe but laws hand rates have been tightened since) but membership of the EU and a highly skilled workforce and stable government ( which have all been coalition’s- so you can have stability with coalition’s). The Tories were historically the party for businesses, Boris was right….. they don’t give a f?!k about businesses anymore I think the mistake a lot of Tory voters have made (not you) is thinking this is still the same Tory party from the 80s and 90s. It isn’t! In many ways almost unrecognisable. " Completely agree and possibly Boris did a lot of damage removing the whip from more moderate conservatives as an act of throwing ‘red meat’ to ERG members or as Ken Clarke called them- ‘the crocodiles’ The problem with the crocodiles is that you can keep feeding them red meat and then they will eat you. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63596773 Just information. Believe something else if you choose to. Up to you. The answer goes back to well before Brexit ( although it certainly does not help). London aside, the country has performed poorly relative to other countries in terms of GDP, productivity for years( hate to say it but especially in the last 12 years and I have normally voted conservative but not since Brexit). Poor and inconsistent government policy and a lack of investment has meant we are falling behind other countries. Our foreign direct investment rates are appalling relative to other countries We should be the European base for a lot of tech and pharmaceutical firms . The reason they base in Ireland is not tax anymore(prior to 2008 yes maybe but laws hand rates have been tightened since) but membership of the EU and a highly skilled workforce and stable government ( which have all been coalition’s- so you can have stability with coalition’s). The Tories were historically the party for businesses, Boris was right….. they don’t give a f?!k about businesses anymore I think the mistake a lot of Tory voters have made (not you) is thinking this is still the same Tory party from the 80s and 90s. It isn’t! In many ways almost unrecognisable. Completely agree and possibly Boris did a lot of damage removing the whip from more moderate conservatives as an act of throwing ‘red meat’ to ERG members or as Ken Clarke called them- ‘the crocodiles’ The problem with the crocodiles is that you can keep feeding them red meat and then they will eat you. " Indeed but not just moderates but also competent and experienced. The Johnson Cabinet and Truss Cabinet were simply woeful. Johnson was such an insecure narcissist, that he didn’t want anyone smarter than him in Cabinet in case he was challenged. Left a shallow pool to fish from. With Truss everyone knew Larry the Cat was smarter than her! Sunak could have bucked the trend. He didn’t and based on some clearly bad judgement calls has undermined his own credibility already. | |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167have you mentioned this article because of the brexit bias element as it's not clear... My first reaction is you are trying to prove that it shouldn't ever be mentioned. But I realise I sometimes don't see the point you are trying to make and address a different one. Actually I'm making the point that Andrew Bailey quotes the GDP recovery figures without providing the full background on how they are calculated in different ways and may or may not be comparable depending on the colour of your eyes... Obviously I may be teasing about the last part, but this is about the insistence that the complete explanation about every aspect of a topic must be given before explaining a broad point. From your previous comments he must surely be wrong to do this...okay, we are talking about this now.
tbf he seemed to focus at the difference in UK versus Us, and the US have adopted the newer approach.
Had he spent time looking at UK v EU, id hope he'd spend time explaining differences in methodologies, yes.
He may have chosen not to. That's his decision and I'd would have been disappointed. Especially given it was a select committee.
There is no one agreed way of measuring gdp nor inflation. Its all just an attempt to measure something that is difficult to measure. I think that should be recognised as part of any perfomance attribution.
You can still get to "we are bottom or close to bottom of the pack" even allowing for potential differences in measurements. And then we can look at why, as Bailey does with the US.
I get why people don't include it It's complicated, it loses people. It doesn't really change the gist of the story.
If it was included would you say that would have been the wrong decision ?
That's the point. It was apparently vital and hugely misleading in one case to use the data as given for the basis of a discussion, but in another it's perfectly reasonable. One a distraction, one needed. Both giving the reasons for the UK performing so badly economically.
The detail of the calculating differences aren't the point. They are an interesting detail.
Perhaps it seemed so important because it was made the focus of this thread?
A distraction from the actual focus that we need to define why the UK is performing so poorly before we can fix it?
Definitely nothing to do with Brexit because of bias though...
I actually posted the article because it seemed like a genuine attempt to identify the reasons. Brexit just in the mix, amongst other things.you see it as in interesting detail. I see it as part of the analysis. We disagree here. I'd like to know how much part of the delta it accounts for.
I don't follow your first statement. It should (imo) form part of UK versus EU (excl France). It needn't form part of UK versus us or uk versus France. I'm not sure where you feel I've been inconsistent.
"I mean that in the BBC article in the OP it was, apparently, in some way misleading not to provide detail on complex growth calculations to the general public but for the Governor of the Bank of England providing a similar narrative to a Parliamentary Committee it can be left out because it's complicated and loses people. My point remains that dwelling on this does not explain why the UK is performing so badly. It looks to me that the point was laboured by the person who brought it up to distract from that. | |||
| |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167have you mentioned this article because of the brexit bias element as it's not clear... My first reaction is you are trying to prove that it shouldn't ever be mentioned. But I realise I sometimes don't see the point you are trying to make and address a different one. Actually I'm making the point that Andrew Bailey quotes the GDP recovery figures without providing the full background on how they are calculated in different ways and may or may not be comparable depending on the colour of your eyes... Obviously I may be teasing about the last part, but this is about the insistence that the complete explanation about every aspect of a topic must be given before explaining a broad point. From your previous comments he must surely be wrong to do this...okay, we are talking about this now.
tbf he seemed to focus at the difference in UK versus Us, and the US have adopted the newer approach.
Had he spent time looking at UK v EU, id hope he'd spend time explaining differences in methodologies, yes.
He may have chosen not to. That's his decision and I'd would have been disappointed. Especially given it was a select committee.
There is no one agreed way of measuring gdp nor inflation. Its all just an attempt to measure something that is difficult to measure. I think that should be recognised as part of any perfomance attribution.
You can still get to "we are bottom or close to bottom of the pack" even allowing for potential differences in measurements. And then we can look at why, as Bailey does with the US.
I get why people don't include it It's complicated, it loses people. It doesn't really change the gist of the story.
If it was included would you say that would have been the wrong decision ?
That's the point. It was apparently vital and hugely misleading in one case to use the data as given for the basis of a discussion, but in another it's perfectly reasonable. One a distraction, one needed. Both giving the reasons for the UK performing so badly economically.
The detail of the calculating differences aren't the point. They are an interesting detail.
Perhaps it seemed so important because it was made the focus of this thread?
A distraction from the actual focus that we need to define why the UK is performing so poorly before we can fix it?
Definitely nothing to do with Brexit because of bias though...
I actually posted the article because it seemed like a genuine attempt to identify the reasons. Brexit just in the mix, amongst other things.you see it as in interesting detail. I see it as part of the analysis. We disagree here. I'd like to know how much part of the delta it accounts for.
I don't follow your first statement. It should (imo) form part of UK versus EU (excl France). It needn't form part of UK versus us or uk versus France. I'm not sure where you feel I've been inconsistent.
I mean that in the BBC article in the OP it was, apparently, in some way misleading not to provide detail on complex growth calculations to the general public but for the Governor of the Bank of England providing a similar narrative to a Parliamentary Committee it can be left out because it's complicated and loses people.
My point remains that dwelling on this does not explain why the UK is performing so badly.
It looks to me that the point was laboured by the person who brought it up to distract from that."ah no. Bailey seemed to be talking about the differences in UK and US. The US have moved to the new approach so the difference in methodology needn't be discussed Had he been analysing UK versus EU in detail I'd like to see it being discussed In general I get why the like of the BBC don't show it, because it loses people. I'd rather they faced into that. But hey, ho. That's my preference. I'd still be able to grasp there is a difference in performance and have a discussion. It's a distraction only if it isn't quantified to some extent. But if it meant we and Germany looked similar, that could lead to a different discussion than if there is a true difference. The question is why did UK and Germany not get back to where they started when everyone else did? That may make us look at vivid approach, or manufacturering and relying on china (I'm guessing) and less about Brexit. Which could be a factor too for sure. But would mean that Germany then had something else going on (or were equally affected). | |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167" Watch the committee hearing https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/158/treasury-committee/publications/oral-evidence/ He can only answer the questions asked. He isn't asked about the blue book. But specifically more quantative easing and inflation. It would be the ONS that would need to be questioned byba select committee. The ONS gather the inflation basket( which he touches on) its nothing to do with the bofe | |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167 Watch the committee hearing https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/158/treasury-committee/publications/oral-evidence/ He can only answer the questions asked. He isn't asked about the blue book. But specifically more quantative easing and inflation. It would be the ONS that would need to be questioned byba select committee. The ONS gather the inflation basket( which he touches on) its nothing to do with the bofe " That's just not true, is it? I have watched the part of this that covered the reasons for the UKs poor economic performance compared to its peers. There was a panel answering. He can say what he likes and add whatever information that he likes and anyone else being questioned can add additional information as they wish. You must have missed this whilst reading trade agreements word for word and sending in freedom of information requests. Nice use of jargon though
Who should we believe? | |||
"Its not complex its down to the education system seems to me all these oxford degrees and such are just a way to feel superior it doesnt make em any better at running anything if you put a mum who has to budget on the breadline incharge im certain she could budget the country much better" It is far more complicated than that. When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister her analogy was a huge oversimplification to make a political point. However, I agree that in principle getting a degree from a prestigious university doesn't mean that you understand how reality works. Look at Truss and Kwarteng. That's what civil servants are supposed to be for. To actually do this stuff as a job and advise Ministers who are just amateurs. That's not the way anymore though... | |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167 Watch the committee hearing https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/158/treasury-committee/publications/oral-evidence/ He can only answer the questions asked. He isn't asked about the blue book. But specifically more quantative easing and inflation. It would be the ONS that would need to be questioned byba select committee. The ONS gather the inflation basket( which he touches on) its nothing to do with the bofe That's just not true, is it? I have watched the part of this that covered the reasons for the UKs poor economic performance compared to its peers. There was a panel answering. He can say what he likes and add whatever information that he likes and anyone else being questioned can add additional information as they wish. You must have missed this whilst reading trade agreements word for word and sending in freedom of information requests. Nice use of jargon though
Who should we believe?"The ons measures the gdp. Not the bofe If they don't ask him he can't answer. He mentions the inflation calculation and adjustments for energy price infliction. You can read the entire thing. The committee is more asking why we are seeing inflation now and what policies the bofe should have possibly enacted. Why would they ask about deflectors to the cpi basket? You seem to want them to ask something they simply wouldn't for this committee | |||
"So, should the Governor of the Bank of England have spent more time explaining the difference in calculation methods? "UK economy recovering ‘dramatically’ worse from Covid than EU and US, says Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey says the different in economic performance is ‘stark’" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html?r=30167 Watch the committee hearing https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/158/treasury-committee/publications/oral-evidence/ He can only answer the questions asked. He isn't asked about the blue book. But specifically more quantative easing and inflation. It would be the ONS that would need to be questioned byba select committee. The ONS gather the inflation basket( which he touches on) its nothing to do with the bofe That's just not true, is it? I have watched the part of this that covered the reasons for the UKs poor economic performance compared to its peers. There was a panel answering. He can say what he likes and add whatever information that he likes and anyone else being questioned can add additional information as they wish. You must have missed this whilst reading trade agreements word for word and sending in freedom of information requests. Nice use of jargon though
Who should we believe?
The ons measures the gdp.
Not the bofe
If they don't ask him he can't answer.
He mentions the inflation calculation and adjustments for energy price infliction.
You can read the entire thing.
The committee is more asking why we are seeing inflation now and what policies the bofe should have possibly enacted.
Why would they ask about deflectors to the cpi basket?
You seem to want them to ask something they simply wouldn't for this committee "I'm well aware that the ONS calculates GDP. What is not true is that anybody giving evidence to a Parliamentary Committee only has to answer direct questions. It's not a trial. It's just information gathering. They are free to add relevant information and anybody in the panel providing evidence can contribute even if not asked to. You can watch it and understand far better. Perhaps you can make a freedom of information request for the video, although you can just watch on YouTube? Who to trust? Is that a question you can answer? | |||
