The BOE seem to think raising rates will stifle growth. Hurt the housing market. No room for a crisis with the strategy they’ve been using.
Put very simply.
We have two choices.
One causes lots of damage, the other very little damage.
In either case lets assume that altering interest rates would cause an improvement.
Surely you would have to choose the option that caused very little damage, and alter the interest rate.
To argue that the alteration of interest rates somehow justifies choosing the option that caused the most damage, is very foolish.
Boris has made a very foolish choice.
Im referring to the BOE not raising rates a few years ago. If they had, then there would be room for cuts and help. Carney moved the goalposts from the unemployment rate to then say now it’s inflation we’re watching.He did nothing, scared of stifling growth, and hurting the housing market. I do get insulted a lot on here, but that seems to say more about you than me. I suspect you want to score points. Thats sad.
If you’ve got any complaints about the Government, get a petition going, then deliver it to Downing Street. No 10 btw.
Yawn, not another excuse for avoiding the same questions?
I don’t avoid anyone Haysie.
Here you go then. I don't intend going back very far to find the questions you have avoided, here are the very recent ones. We will see if your post is true.
Do you think we should remain closely aligned and protect the economy, or diverge and purposely damage it?
And why?
Do you think Boris has a mandate to diverge?
If so where from?
Does leaving with a Norway plus deal, still amount to leaving?
As we already conduct some checks between NI, and UK, which are done on the ferries to avoid delays. Do you think that in the light of the fact that we are about to employ 50,000 staff to process the additional post Brexit paperwork, in addition to a large number of extra Customs Officers. That we may have chosen to employ extra staff to carry out checks on the ferries, and therefore avoid delays, in order to avoid drug, and people smuggling, that this could have been implemented many years ago, and avoided any dead bodies turning up in trucks?
Do you agree that we didn't need to leave the EU, to provide more protection for our borders?
The Tory Party was fairly recently conducting an ABB campaign. This stood for anyone but Boris. What changed?
Boris has made it clear that he will not extend the EU trade negotiations past the end of December. Do you agree with this?
Or do you think he should focus on the best deal for the UK, however long that takes?
Do you think we will attract many foreign manufacturers to the UK, post Brexit. Or do you think that they will be more likely to set up in Europe, to access a bigger market?
Yawn, not another excuse for avoiding the same questions?
I don’t avoid anyone Haysie.
You could also address this one, as you brought it up?
It is no secret that we are an ageing population, and the NHS will need more funding to cover the increasing costs.
The loss of beds, staff, and cutbacks in social care have added pressure to the smooth running of the service.
The NHS has also faced criticisms in many areas.
Until very recently they were the worlds largest purchaser of fax machines. Ridiculous.
Matt Hancock then made them the worlds largest purchaser of refrigerators, just in case we end up with a no deal Brexit.
There was a recent programme on BBC, which focused on the billions that the NHS lose due to being ripped off by staff.
Doctors are forced to send home patients that aren't fit for release, after weighing up the needs of patients requiring admission against those of the current bed occupants.
Many patients are released that are unable to fend for themselves, due to social care cutbacks.
Many patients block beds that don't need medical treatment, but cant be released because a lack of home care being available.
The NHS restrict the payment made to the private companies for operations, to the actual costs that the NHS charges itself. Yet the private companies make millions at these prices.
Compensation claims are rising.
Many surgeons are restricting their working hours due to an anomaly in their personal taxation meaning that they earn less by increasing their working hours. Therefore increasing waiting lists. How long does it take to resolve this issue?
The Tories response seems to be the abandonment of targets, rather than attempting any improvement.
I could go on and on.
The bottom line is that we will continue to be an aging population, the NHS is poorly run, during the last 10 years the Tories have made it worse, cuts in social care have increased the pressure.
The love of an NHS by the general public, is hard to explain, as it seems to lurch from one disaster to the next.
Yawn, not another excuse for avoiding the same questions?
I don’t avoid anyone Haysie.
What about this one?
Put very simply.
We have two choices.
One causes lots of damage, the other very little damage.
In either case lets assume that altering interest rates would cause an improvement.
Surely you would have to choose the option that caused very little damage, and alter the interest rate.
To argue that the alteration of interest rates somehow justifies choosing the option that caused the most damage, is very foolish.
Boris has made a very foolish choice.
I cant be bothered to go back any further, but, lastly, what about this one?
This is quite frustrating, you don't seem able to get your head around the debate,
This is a Brexit thread.
I am debating the pitfalls of the Boris position on Brexit.
You are avoiding this.
I am arguing that Boris will cause damage to the economy because of the path he has chosen.
He could have chosen a different path.
He has no mandate for the path he has chosen.
You wish to bring other measures into this debate.
Even if raising or lowering interest rates were to mitigate this damage it is irrelevant to the argument.
The debate is regarding the inevitable results of Mr Johnstones chosen path.
Lets say he damages the economy by 5% of GDP, due to his divergence from the EU.
Lets say that raising or lowering interest rates mitigates this by lets say 1% of GDP, it doesn't make the divergence the correct decision.
The alignment or divergence is a debate on its own.
Other measures that may mitigate the damage, are a different debate and irrelevant to this.
I know you are not keen on facts, with the exception of Tony Blair being responsible for all the terrorism in the world.
Here are a few facts.
The closer we remain aligned to the EU, the more access we will be allowed to the Single Market.
The more access we retain to the Single Market, the less jobs are at risk, and the least damage is caused to the economy.
The more we diverge the less access we get to the SM.
Boris has already chosen to diverge, and therefore cause the most damage possible to our economy.
Whatever measures that may soften the blow, he has still chosen this path.
If altering interest rates was a benefit, then this could be done, in addition to remaining aligned, and causing less damage.
To argue that it is ok to take the path that caused the most damage, but altering interest rates may slightly improve the damage, is absolutely idiotic.
Leg 1 13:30 Cheltenham (CH) 1. Abacadabras 13. Shishkin Leg 2 14:10 Cheltenham (CH) 7. Notebook 9. Rouge Vif Leg 3 14:50 Cheltenham (CH) 1. Vinndication Leg 4 15:30 Cheltenham (CH) 7. Darver Star 17. Epatante Leg 5 16:10 Cheltenham (CH) 1. Benie Des Dieux Leg 6 16:50 Cheltenham (CH) 8. Imperial Aura 10. Galvin Stake: £16.00 Potential Returns: N/A Bet Receipt: P/142817519/0010028 12:00 - 10 Mar Totepool Placepot
Leg 1 13:30 Cheltenham (CH) 1. Abacadabras 13. Shishkin Leg 2 14:10 Cheltenham (CH) 7. Notebook 9. Rouge Vif Leg 3 14:50 Cheltenham (CH) 1. Vinndication Leg 4 15:30 Cheltenham (CH) 7. Darver Star 17. Epatante Leg 5 16:10 Cheltenham (CH) 1. Benie Des Dieux Leg 6 16:50 Cheltenham (CH) 8. Imperial Aura 10. Galvin Stake: £80.00 Potential Returns: N/A Bet Receipt: P/142817519/0010027 11:55 - 10 Mar
Good effort. I might post in ‘ its coming’ later. Purely based on logic. As I think you may well be over 60, it may or not apply to you. Just my thoughts through logic, as there seems to be quite a few different views on the virus. It’ll be in the early hours though, as I perform better in bed, hence all the children.
I am afraid to say that whoever told you that you could put forward an argument based on logic was deluded.
Ex-Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt blasts Boris Johnson's 'concerning' decision not to ban public events and wants end to care home visits as he says government is NOT doing enough to battle coronavirus 'national emergency'
Former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has revealed he is 'surprised and concerned' Boris Johnson didn't lockdown parts of Britain to tackle the coronavirus 'national emergency' as debate rages over whether the PM has gone far enough to protect the 66million population from the pandemic. Mr Hunt, who is now chair of the Commons health and social care select committee, believes the Prime Minister must do more to encourage social distancing - and was particularly concerned care homes are not being told to ban visitors. The official number of coronavirus cases in the UK yesterday jumped by 134 to 590 with 10 deaths - but the Government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said the true number was probably up to 10,000 cases and growing rapidly.
Most of the front pages focus on what the Daily Mail calls "one of the bleakest messages delivered by any modern prime minister". Boris Johnson's warning during a Downing Street news conference - that many families will lose loved ones because of the coronavirus - is reflected in many of the headlines in some form or another. The Daily Express believes that Mr Johnson's candour "was a mark of his leadership". It says people "should be grateful that the actions taken by his government and the excellent officials have bought Britain some time to prepare".
The website, Huffpost UK, also approves of the prime minister's performance. It suggests that even his admirers would be the first to admit that he's not normally associated with words like "sombre, serious and statesmanlike". But it says he "had to be all three" - "and he was". Under the headline "let them lead", the Sun argues that there is some comfort in knowing that the government is listening to its chief medical and scientific advisers - and following their advice on saving lives and minimising suffering. It singles out critics of his decision not to ban flights or events, or close schools - saying that "their assumption that other countries' far more draconian actions must be right" is baffling. But the Mirror is less convinced about the strategy - asking on its front page "is it enough?" It quotes the former health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, saying "many people will be surprised and concerned that we are not moving sooner".
The Financial Times accuses President Trump of - in its words - "pouring fuel on the flames of the coronavirus", with his 30-day ban on travel to the US from most of Europe. The FT believes it was this that led to Thursday's record falls in global share prices. It goes on to say that, while the leader of the free world is traditionally a source of reassurance in times of crisis, Mr Trump is instead providing confusion. The American website, Politico, reports that senior Trump aides are, in its words, "scrambling" to come up with a rescue plan for sectors of the economy "crumbling" because of the pandemic. These include airlines and hospitality. One official is quoted as saying he's reluctant to use what he calls "the b-word" - bailout - but warns that unless something is done the US aviation industry could be facing an "extinction moment".
The Guardian's website suggests that Premier League football clubs are preparing for the season to be suspended - after the Arsenal manager, Mikel Arteta, tested positive for Covid-19. The paper says it's spoken to an executive at one club who hasn't ruled out the possibility of the whole season being made void.
Finally, the Sun and the Daily Mirror both report that Greggs is to make a second attempt to set up a shop in Cornwall, despite opposition from local people. The bakery chain's first branch, in the town of Saltash, closed nine months after it opened, because of a lack of business. One local tells the Sun: "Pasty makers here have been making them for a long time and we make the real McCoy - that's what Greggs is up against."
Boris Johnson trade deal plan little better than no-deal Brexit, UK’s former ambassador to EU warns Ivan Rogers says some in Downing Street appear to be ‘misjudging’ negotiations
The limited EU trade agreement pursued by Boris Johnson could be little better for the economy than a no-deal Brexit, the UK’s former ambassador to Brussels has warned. Sir Ivan Rogers, who served as the UK’s top official in the EU capital under both David Cameron and Theresa May, said he was not optimistic at the prospect of a deal by the end of the year.
He also suggested there were people in the government “misjudging” the right approach to negotiations.
“I think you could reach a quick and dirty, skinny, very thin, FTA. You might question how much economic value it has in comparison with no deal,” he told a think tank event in Whitehall.
‘Coronavirus? We’re more worried about no-deal Brexit,’ say UK firms While large multinationals may be able to ride out the economic turmoil on the horizon, some smaller firms have more to worry about. Ben Chapman reports
Treasury figures from Budget confirm there was no £350m a week Brexit dividend Brexit has in fact cost every person in the UK £1,200 so far, spending watchdog says – as economy flat-lines
The Treasury has confirmed that it will not be getting an extra £350 million a week after Britain stops paying into the EU budget, despite false claims by Brexiteers during the referendum. Britain is in fact expected to be overall poorer by £1,200 per person because of Brexit's economic drag, according to the government's spending watchdog.
The chancellor's red budget book shows the gross EU contributions saved by the UK will be around £42 billion over the next five years, rather than the £91 billion claimed under the false figure publicised by Boris Johnson in 2016.
Comments
I don't intend going back very far to find the questions you have avoided, here are the very recent ones.
We will see if your post is true.
Do you think we should remain closely aligned and protect the economy, or diverge and purposely damage it?
And why?
Do you think Boris has a mandate to diverge?
If so where from?
Does leaving with a Norway plus deal, still amount to leaving?
As we already conduct some checks between NI, and UK, which are done on the ferries to avoid delays. Do you think that in the light of the fact that we are about to employ 50,000 staff to process the additional post Brexit paperwork, in addition to a large number of extra Customs Officers. That we may have chosen to employ extra staff to carry out checks on the ferries, and therefore avoid delays, in order to avoid drug, and people smuggling, that this could have been implemented many years ago, and avoided any dead bodies turning up in trucks?
Do you agree that we didn't need to leave the EU, to provide more protection for our borders?
The Tory Party was fairly recently conducting an ABB campaign. This stood for anyone but Boris. What changed?
Boris has made it clear that he will not extend the EU trade negotiations past the end of December. Do you agree with this?
Or do you think he should focus on the best deal for the UK, however long that takes?
Do you think we will attract many foreign manufacturers to the UK, post Brexit. Or do you think that they will be more likely to set up in Europe, to access a bigger market?
You could also address this one, as you brought it up?
It is no secret that we are an ageing population, and the NHS will need more funding to cover the increasing costs.
The loss of beds, staff, and cutbacks in social care have added pressure to the smooth running of the service.
The NHS has also faced criticisms in many areas.
Until very recently they were the worlds largest purchaser of fax machines. Ridiculous.
Matt Hancock then made them the worlds largest purchaser of refrigerators, just in case we end up with a no deal Brexit.
There was a recent programme on BBC, which focused on the billions that the NHS lose due to being ripped off by staff.
Doctors are forced to send home patients that aren't fit for release, after weighing up the needs of patients requiring admission against those of the current bed occupants.
Many patients are released that are unable to fend for themselves, due to social care cutbacks.
Many patients block beds that don't need medical treatment, but cant be released because a lack of home care being available.
The NHS restrict the payment made to the private companies for operations, to the actual costs that the NHS charges itself. Yet the private companies make millions at these prices.
Compensation claims are rising.
Many surgeons are restricting their working hours due to an anomaly in their personal taxation meaning that they earn less by increasing their working hours. Therefore increasing waiting lists. How long does it take to resolve this issue?
The Tories response seems to be the abandonment of targets, rather than attempting any improvement.
I could go on and on.
The bottom line is that we will continue to be an aging population, the NHS is poorly run, during the last 10 years the Tories have made it worse, cuts in social care have increased the pressure.
The love of an NHS by the general public, is hard to explain, as it seems to lurch from one disaster to the next.
This post goes against all the evidence.
How old are you?
And this. What about this one?
Put very simply.
We have two choices.
One causes lots of damage, the other very little damage.
In either case lets assume that altering interest rates would cause an improvement.
Surely you would have to choose the option that caused very little damage, and alter the interest rate.
To argue that the alteration of interest rates somehow justifies choosing the option that caused the most damage, is very foolish.
Boris has made a very foolish choice.
I cant be bothered to go back any further, but, lastly, what about this one?
This is quite frustrating, you don't seem able to get your head around the debate,
This is a Brexit thread.
I am debating the pitfalls of the Boris position on Brexit.
You are avoiding this.
I am arguing that Boris will cause damage to the economy because of the path he has chosen.
He could have chosen a different path.
He has no mandate for the path he has chosen.
You wish to bring other measures into this debate.
Even if raising or lowering interest rates were to mitigate this damage it is irrelevant to the argument.
The debate is regarding the inevitable results of Mr Johnstones chosen path.
Lets say he damages the economy by 5% of GDP, due to his divergence from the EU.
Lets say that raising or lowering interest rates mitigates this by lets say 1% of GDP, it doesn't make the divergence the correct decision.
The alignment or divergence is a debate on its own.
Other measures that may mitigate the damage, are a different debate and irrelevant to this.
I know you are not keen on facts, with the exception of Tony Blair being responsible for all the terrorism in the world.
Here are a few facts.
The closer we remain aligned to the EU, the more access we will be allowed to the Single Market.
The more access we retain to the Single Market, the less jobs are at risk, and the least damage is caused to the economy.
The more we diverge the less access we get to the SM.
Boris has already chosen to diverge, and therefore cause the most damage possible to our economy.
Whatever measures that may soften the blow, he has still chosen this path.
If altering interest rates was a benefit, then this could be done, in addition to remaining aligned, and causing less damage.
To argue that it is ok to take the path that caused the most damage, but altering interest rates may slightly improve the damage, is absolutely idiotic.
This is the argument you seem to be making.
Have you taken your medication this morning?
I am able to answer questions without the need for any medication.
Former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has revealed he is 'surprised and concerned' Boris Johnson didn't lockdown parts of Britain to tackle the coronavirus 'national emergency' as debate rages over whether the PM has gone far enough to protect the 66million population from the pandemic.
Mr Hunt, who is now chair of the Commons health and social care select committee, believes the Prime Minister must do more to encourage social distancing - and was particularly concerned care homes are not being told to ban visitors.
The official number of coronavirus cases in the UK yesterday jumped by 134 to 590 with 10 deaths - but the Government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said the true number was probably up to 10,000 cases and growing rapidly.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/ex-health-secretary-jeremy-hunt-blasts-boris-johnsons-concerning-decision-not-to-ban-public-events-and-wants-end-to-care-home-visits-as-he-says-government-is-not-doing-enough-to-battle-coronavirus-national-emergency/ar-BB118aTW?ocid=spartanntp
Most of the front pages focus on what the Daily Mail calls "one of the bleakest messages delivered by any modern prime minister".
Boris Johnson's warning during a Downing Street news conference - that many families will lose loved ones because of the coronavirus - is reflected in many of the headlines in some form or another.
The Daily Express believes that Mr Johnson's candour "was a mark of his leadership". It says people "should be grateful that the actions taken by his government and the excellent officials have bought Britain some time to prepare".
The website, Huffpost UK, also approves of the prime minister's performance. It suggests that even his admirers would be the first to admit that he's not normally associated with words like "sombre, serious and statesmanlike". But it says he "had to be all three" - "and he was".
Under the headline "let them lead", the Sun argues that there is some comfort in knowing that the government is listening to its chief medical and scientific advisers - and following their advice on saving lives and minimising suffering.
It singles out critics of his decision not to ban flights or events, or close schools - saying that "their assumption that other countries' far more draconian actions must be right" is baffling.
But the Mirror is less convinced about the strategy - asking on its front page "is it enough?" It quotes the former health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, saying "many people will be surprised and concerned that we are not moving sooner".
The Financial Times accuses President Trump of - in its words - "pouring fuel on the flames of the coronavirus", with his 30-day ban on travel to the US from most of Europe.
The FT believes it was this that led to Thursday's record falls in global share prices. It goes on to say that, while the leader of the free world is traditionally a source of reassurance in times of crisis, Mr Trump is instead providing confusion.
The American website, Politico, reports that senior Trump aides are, in its words, "scrambling" to come up with a rescue plan for sectors of the economy "crumbling" because of the pandemic. These include airlines and hospitality.
One official is quoted as saying he's reluctant to use what he calls "the b-word" - bailout - but warns that unless something is done the US aviation industry could be facing an "extinction moment".
The Guardian's website suggests that Premier League football clubs are preparing for the season to be suspended - after the Arsenal manager, Mikel Arteta, tested positive for Covid-19.
The paper says it's spoken to an executive at one club who hasn't ruled out the possibility of the whole season being made void.
Finally, the Sun and the Daily Mirror both report that Greggs is to make a second attempt to set up a shop in Cornwall, despite opposition from local people.
The bakery chain's first branch, in the town of Saltash, closed nine months after it opened, because of a lack of business. One local tells the Sun: "Pasty makers here have been making them for a long time and we make the real McCoy - that's what Greggs is up against."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-51865034
Boris Johnson trade deal plan little better than no-deal Brexit, UK’s former ambassador to EU warns
Ivan Rogers says some in Downing Street appear to be ‘misjudging’ negotiations
The limited EU trade agreement pursued by Boris Johnson could be little better for the economy than a no-deal Brexit, the UK’s former ambassador to Brussels has warned.
Sir Ivan Rogers, who served as the UK’s top official in the EU capital under both David Cameron and Theresa May, said he was not optimistic at the prospect of a deal by the end of the year.
He also suggested there were people in the government “misjudging” the right approach to negotiations.
“I think you could reach a quick and dirty, skinny, very thin, FTA. You might question how much economic value it has in comparison with no deal,” he told a think tank event in Whitehall.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-trade-deal-eu-agreement-a9397006.html
While large multinationals may be able to ride out the economic turmoil on the horizon, some smaller firms have more to worry about. Ben Chapman reports
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/coronavirus-business-impact-britain-no-deal-brexit-a9380066.html
Brexit has in fact cost every person in the UK £1,200 so far, spending watchdog says – as economy flat-lines
The Treasury has confirmed that it will not be getting an extra £350 million a week after Britain stops paying into the EU budget, despite false claims by Brexiteers during the referendum.
Britain is in fact expected to be overall poorer by £1,200 per person because of Brexit's economic drag, according to the government's spending watchdog.
The chancellor's red budget book shows the gross EU contributions saved by the UK will be around £42 billion over the next five years, rather than the £91 billion claimed under the false figure publicised by Boris Johnson in 2016.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-rushi-sunak-treasury-figures-brexit-dividend-a9395476.html
It’s all change.