Thats it well done ...cherry pick the headline that suits your stance .
We could look at some other things he also said ( allegedly ) in the article like :
" Theresa May's plan is the best available" and "But it was not just about the economy, the chancellor added - her plan would deliver "political benefits" as well." and "He said Mrs May's deal would reduce to "an absolute minimum the economic impact of leaving the EU, while delivering the political benefits" such as being able to do trade deals outside the EU and "having control of our fishing waters".
Sir Bill cash ( who you obviously don't want to hear , because he opposes your stance ) said this ( allegedly ) " Veteran Conservative Eurosceptic Sir Bill Cash said Mr Hammond was effectively arguing for the UK to stay in the European Union in his "extraordinary" statement.
He said the chancellor had ignored potential economic benefits of leaving the EU, asking: "What about the trade deals which could give us the most enormous opportunities throughout the world, if we are able to strike them?"
So more to digest there than a headline grabber !
Another interpretation of course would be taking notice of The Chancellors advice on the post Brexit economy. rather than just cherry picking a headline. Theresa Mays deal is the best available, but not as good as staying in. I wonder if those people already struggling financially, who will become worse off, will take comfort in his opinion that her plan will deliver political benefits. Whoopee her plan will make us less worse off than other plans. Brilliant, that's put my mind at rest. How many people when ticking that leave box in the referendum, did so happy in the knowledge that there would be political benefits, but unaware that they may end up £1000 per year worse off.
I don't really care about Bill Cashs opinion, but I don't think you can have it both ways. The Chancellor couldn't be selling the idea of the political benefits of leaving and remaining in the EU in the same article. Even though the most sensible option would be to stay in.
There are clearly no economic benefits of leaving. There are many doubts about possible trade deals, and we have to get 65 trade deals just to make up for the ones that we will lose. I note that he says if we are able to strike them. Maybe a big if.
Which of these political benefits do you think will benefit the average working man in a tangible way?
Do you think that the average working man would prefer money in his pocket, or political benefits?
You cant eat political benefits, and food banks are likely to be busier.
Every kind of Brexit will make people worse off – even if Theresa May says otherwise
The Government released its long-awaited Brexit economic scenarios on Wednesday. This comes after other scenarios from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (Niesr) and the UK in Changing Europe think tank earlier this week. What do they all show? Why are they different? And what is the overriding message about the economic consequences of Brexit? What does the Government’s exercise show? It suggest that the Brexit (broadly) embodied in Theresa May’s preferred Brexit deal and the Government’s plans to cut back migration from Europe would knock between 2.5 per cent and 3.9 per cent hit off UK GDP, relative to staying in the EU, over the next 15 years. There would, under the Government’s modelling exercise, be a small boost to UK GDP from new trade deals. Yet these gains would be more than offset by the economic costs of new trade barriers with the EU and a hit from lower net migration. A no-deal Brexit, on the other hand, where we merely trade with the European Union on bare World Trade Organisation rules is seen knocking 9.3 per cent off the UK’s GDP over the same period. A simple Canada-style free trade deal is also negative, seen as holding back GDP growth by 6.7 per cent
even if Theresa May says otherwiseBut what’s the overall message?
It is the opposite to the one implied by Theresa May, who told the Commons on Wednesday that analysis of the impact of leaving the EU “does not show we will be poorer”. In fact the Government’s own analysis does show precisely that. Relative to staying in the EU we will be worse off due to Brexit – and this is true even of her favoured deal. And this official analysis is broadly in line with the credible analysis done by independent outside experts. The fact that they all produced similar results despite using different modelling techniques reinforces that message. All the credible modelling evidence suggests that leaving the EU, from an economic perspective, is a damage limitation exercise. There is no upside
Thats it well done ...cherry pick the headline that suits your stance .
We could look at some other things he also said ( allegedly ) in the article like :
" Theresa May's plan is the best available" and "But it was not just about the economy, the chancellor added - her plan would deliver "political benefits" as well." and "He said Mrs May's deal would reduce to "an absolute minimum the economic impact of leaving the EU, while delivering the political benefits" such as being able to do trade deals outside the EU and "having control of our fishing waters".
Sir Bill cash ( who you obviously don't want to hear , because he opposes your stance ) said this ( allegedly ) " Veteran Conservative Eurosceptic Sir Bill Cash said Mr Hammond was effectively arguing for the UK to stay in the European Union in his "extraordinary" statement.
He said the chancellor had ignored potential economic benefits of leaving the EU, asking: "What about the trade deals which could give us the most enormous opportunities throughout the world, if we are able to strike them?"
So more to digest there than a headline grabber !
Another interpretation of course would be taking notice of The Chancellors advice on the post Brexit economy. rather than just cherry picking a headline. Theresa Mays deal is the best available, but not as good as staying in. I wonder if those people already struggling financially, who will become worse off, will take comfort in his opinion that her plan will deliver political benefits. Whoopee her plan will make us less worse off than other plans. Brilliant, that's put my mind at rest. How many people when ticking that leave box in the referendum, did so happy in the knowledge that there would be political benefits, but unaware that they may end up £1000 per year worse off.
I don't really care about Bill Cashs opinion, but I don't think you can have it both ways. He couldn't be selling the idea of the political benefits of leaving and remaining in the EU in the same article. Even though the most sensible option would be to stay in.
There are clearly no economic benefits of leaving. There are many doubts about possible trade deals, and we have to get 65 trade deals just to make up for the ones that we will lose. I note that he says if we are able to strike them. Maybe a big if.
Which of these political benefits do you think will benefit the average working man in a tangible way?
Do you think that the average working man would prefer money in his pocket, or political benefits?
You cant eat political benefits, and food banks are likely to be busier.
Of course you don't care about his opinion , it opposes yours . Predictable! Who exactly is this " average working man " you speak of ?
I know I'm wasting my time trying to educate you Haysie , but still ...this is a well written article imo on economic forecasting . Perhaps you would do well to read it and perhaps try and grasp the concept that lots of small variables can completely skew a forecast . >>> https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/02/economic-forecasting-flawed-science-data
Apologies, “ Questioning the merits” was, perhaps , the wrong terminology. Maybe finding flaws in the reasoning? Questioning the “facts”? Pointing out errors?
You seem more than happy to do ^ to Haysies posts, but as far as I’m aware you haven’t questioned anything about the Leave campaign, maybe because there is no strong argument for leaving?
Either way, there hasn’t, to my knowledge been any detailed reasoning behind the “ We are better off out” I’m curious as to how better off we will be, perhaps someone could enlighten me, and as to why those who ran the campaign are busying themselves getting German and Irish Passports.
On the subject of lies, I guess the big red bus was a tad misleading to say the least..
Of course you don't care about his opinion , it opposes yours . Predictable! Who exactly is this " average working man " you speak of ?
Nitpicking again, you just don't have an opinion. You were quoting Bill Cashs criticism of what he thought The Chancellor was saying in his interview. I am not a big fan of The Chancellor, or Bill Cash.
You were criticising me for just posting the headline to this article, and pointed out that The Chancellor referred to other benefits to leaving, and that it wasn't all about the financial impact of Brexit.
My opinion is that in doing this he was trying to sell the benefits of the proposed deal. Bill Cash obviously doesn't agree with this. Why would he think that trying to sell The Prime Ministers deal to the general public could be helped by supporting the argument to stay in.
Surely if he wanted to support this argument he would have just said that we would be worse off financially, and left out the bit about the political benefits.
I don't think that me not caring about Bill Cashs opinion of The Chancellor, says anything about me, other than that.
Well that is my opinion, what about yours?
The question about the average working man is another case of nitpicking, a smokescreen to avoid answering the question, and having an opinion.
There have been three reports released during the last couple of days, one of which by this Government, all of them pretty much agree. All of them show that every Brexit option is detrimental to the economy. They vary in the amounts that the average person will be worse off by, as a result of Brexit, depending on the option chosen.
Forgive me for not celebrating your point that the current Government plan is the least worst option, and that we will not be as badly off as we could be if another plan was chosen.
The question that I asked that you don't seem prepared to answer is that if you thought that the average person would be happy with gaining political benefits at the expense of money in their pocket.
It would seem that you much prefer nitpicking about simple questions rather than answering them.
Of course you don't care about his opinion , it opposes yours . Predictable! Who exactly is this " average working man " you speak of ?
Nitpicking again, you just don't have an opinion. You were quoting Bill Cashs criticism of what he thought The Chancellor was saying in his interview. I am not a big fan of The Chancellor, or Bill Cash.
You were criticising me for just posting the headline to this article, and pointed out that The Chancellor referred to other benefits to leaving, and that it wasn't all about the financial impact of Brexit.
My opinion is that in doing this he was trying to sell the benefits of the proposed deal. Bill Cash obviously doesn't agree with this. Why would he think that trying to sell The Prime Ministers deal to the general public could be helped by supporting the argument to stay in.
Surely if he wanted to support this argument he would have just said that we would be worse off financially, and left out the bit about the political benefits.
I don't think that me not caring about Bill Cashs opinion of The Chancellor, says anything about me, other than that.
Well that is my opinion, what about yours?
The question about the average working man is another case of nitpicking, a smokescreen to avoid answering the question, and having an opinion.
There have been three reports released during the last couple of days, one of which by this Government, all of them pretty much agree. All of them show that every Brexit option is detrimental to the economy. They vary in the amounts that the average person will be worse off by, as a result of Brexit, depending on the option chosen.
Forgive me for not celebrating your point that the current Government plan is the least worst option, and that we will not be as badly off as we could be if another plan was chosen.
The question that I asked that you don't seem prepared to answer is that if you thought that the average person would be happy with gaining political benefits at the expense of money in their pocket.
It would seem that you much prefer nitpicking about simple questions rather than answering them.
I get it ...calling you out on your comments is nitpicking . I'd happily answer your question if you could quantify who these " average" people are . But once again , you avoid answering the questions , by saying it's nitpicking and a smokescreen .
This is what David Davis had to say earlier : In a speech this morning David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, rejected the government’s claim that Brexit would make the UK poorer. He said:
Treasury forecasts in the past have almost never been right and have more often been dramatically wrong.
As the Press Association reports, Davis said predictions the UK economy would contract by 2.1% in the 18 months after the Leave vote were unfounded, with it actually growing by 2.8%. He also said that other negative forecasts around unemployment and family incomes were also unfounded.
None of this spine-chilling nonsense came to pass.
Davis suggested a Brexit scenario in which the UK reverts to a free trade deal with the EU based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could benefit the economy. “It would involve all the choking tentacles of the EU falling away,” he said. As the Press Association reports, Davis said UK exports to non-EU countries had grown four times faster than exports to the EU.
The future of the UK economy does not lie with the EU but with the wider world.
John McDonnell said this >>>>"We’re in the ludicrous position of seeing an analysis produced today on the economic implications of Brexit which is in fact an assessment of the Chequers proposals abandoned months ago.
The government has been unable to assess the vague, half-baked deal the PM is promising, but what we do know is the latest proposals are worse than even the Chequers deal.
What the analysis produced by the Treasury today does show us is that the Tories plans will leave the country poorer"
This is what David Davis had to say earlier : In a speech this morning David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, rejected the government’s claim that Brexit would make the UK poorer. He said:
Treasury forecasts in the past have almost never been right and have more often been dramatically wrong.
As the Press Association reports, Davis said predictions the UK economy would contract by 2.1% in the 18 months after the Leave vote were unfounded, with it actually growing by 2.8%. He also said that other negative forecasts around unemployment and family incomes were also unfounded.
None of this spine-chilling nonsense came to pass.
Davis suggested a Brexit scenario in which the UK reverts to a free trade deal with the EU based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could benefit the economy. “It would involve all the choking tentacles of the EU falling away,” he said. As the Press Association reports, Davis said UK exports to non-EU countries had grown four times faster than exports to the EU.
The future of the UK economy does not lie with the EU but with the wider world.
Is this the same David Davis that said when he was Brexit Secretary that we would get exactly the same benefits when we left, and that was ridiculed the other day for thinking that we would still get a Transition Period with no deal?
John McDonnell said this >>>>"We’re in the ludicrous position of seeing an analysis produced today on the economic implications of Brexit which is in fact an assessment of the Chequers proposals abandoned months ago.
The government has been unable to assess the vague, half-baked deal the PM is promising, but what we do know is the latest proposals are worse than even the Chequers deal.
What the analysis produced by the Treasury today does show us is that the Tories plans will leave the country poorer"
John McDonnell said this >>>>"We’re in the ludicrous position of seeing an analysis produced today on the economic implications of Brexit which is in fact an assessment of the Chequers proposals abandoned months ago.
The government has been unable to assess the vague, half-baked deal the PM is promising, but what we do know is the latest proposals are worse than even the Chequers deal.
What the analysis produced by the Treasury today does show us is that the Tories plans will leave the country poorer"
And?
Well done, a 3 letter word response ..pretty much on a par with your " BS " rant .
This is what David Davis had to say earlier : In a speech this morning David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, rejected the government’s claim that Brexit would make the UK poorer. He said:
Treasury forecasts in the past have almost never been right and have more often been dramatically wrong.
As the Press Association reports, Davis said predictions the UK economy would contract by 2.1% in the 18 months after the Leave vote were unfounded, with it actually growing by 2.8%. He also said that other negative forecasts around unemployment and family incomes were also unfounded.
None of this spine-chilling nonsense came to pass.
Davis suggested a Brexit scenario in which the UK reverts to a free trade deal with the EU based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could benefit the economy. “It would involve all the choking tentacles of the EU falling away,” he said. As the Press Association reports, Davis said UK exports to non-EU countries had grown four times faster than exports to the EU.
The future of the UK economy does not lie with the EU but with the wider world.
Is this the same David Davis that said when he was Brexit Secretary that we would get exactly the same benefits when we left, and that was ridiculed the other day for thinking that we would still get a Transition Period with no deal?
My apologies , I mistakenly thought you wanted other opinions on this thread apart from your own . Hence the quote from a leading politician .
This is what David Davis had to say earlier : In a speech this morning David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, rejected the government’s claim that Brexit would make the UK poorer. He said:
Treasury forecasts in the past have almost never been right and have more often been dramatically wrong.
As the Press Association reports, Davis said predictions the UK economy would contract by 2.1% in the 18 months after the Leave vote were unfounded, with it actually growing by 2.8%. He also said that other negative forecasts around unemployment and family incomes were also unfounded.
None of this spine-chilling nonsense came to pass.
Davis suggested a Brexit scenario in which the UK reverts to a free trade deal with the EU based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could benefit the economy. “It would involve all the choking tentacles of the EU falling away,” he said. As the Press Association reports, Davis said UK exports to non-EU countries had grown four times faster than exports to the EU.
The future of the UK economy does not lie with the EU but with the wider world.
Is this the same David Davis that said when he was Brexit Secretary that we would get exactly the same benefits when we left, and that was ridiculed the other day for thinking that we would still get a Transition Period with no deal?
My apologies , I mistakenly thought you wanted other opinions on this thread apart from your own . Hence the quote from a leading politician .
Of course you don't care about his opinion , it opposes yours . Predictable! Who exactly is this " average working man " you speak of ?
Nitpicking again, you just don't have an opinion. You were quoting Bill Cashs criticism of what he thought The Chancellor was saying in his interview. I am not a big fan of The Chancellor, or Bill Cash.
You were criticising me for just posting the headline to this article, and pointed out that The Chancellor referred to other benefits to leaving, and that it wasn't all about the financial impact of Brexit.
My opinion is that in doing this he was trying to sell the benefits of the proposed deal. Bill Cash obviously doesn't agree with this. Why would he think that trying to sell The Prime Ministers deal to the general public could be helped by supporting the argument to stay in.
Surely if he wanted to support this argument he would have just said that we would be worse off financially, and left out the bit about the political benefits.
I don't think that me not caring about Bill Cashs opinion of The Chancellor, says anything about me, other than that.
Well that is my opinion, what about yours?
The question about the average working man is another case of nitpicking, a smokescreen to avoid answering the question, and having an opinion.
There have been three reports released during the last couple of days, one of which by this Government, all of them pretty much agree. All of them show that every Brexit option is detrimental to the economy. They vary in the amounts that the average person will be worse off by, as a result of Brexit, depending on the option chosen.
Forgive me for not celebrating your point that the current Government plan is the least worst option, and that we will not be as badly off as we could be if another plan was chosen.
The question that I asked that you don't seem prepared to answer is that if you thought that the average person would be happy with gaining political benefits at the expense of money in their pocket.
It would seem that you much prefer nitpicking about simple questions rather than answering them.
I get it ...calling you out on your comments is nitpicking . I'd happily answer your question if you could quantify who these " average" people are . But once again , you avoid answering the questions , by saying it's nitpicking and a smokescreen .
Why on earth do you think I should care about what Bill Cash thinks about The Chancellor?
This is what David Davis had to say earlier : In a speech this morning David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, rejected the government’s claim that Brexit would make the UK poorer. He said:
Treasury forecasts in the past have almost never been right and have more often been dramatically wrong.
As the Press Association reports, Davis said predictions the UK economy would contract by 2.1% in the 18 months after the Leave vote were unfounded, with it actually growing by 2.8%. He also said that other negative forecasts around unemployment and family incomes were also unfounded.
None of this spine-chilling nonsense came to pass.
Davis suggested a Brexit scenario in which the UK reverts to a free trade deal with the EU based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could benefit the economy. “It would involve all the choking tentacles of the EU falling away,” he said. As the Press Association reports, Davis said UK exports to non-EU countries had grown four times faster than exports to the EU.
The future of the UK economy does not lie with the EU but with the wider world.
Is this the same David Davis that said when he was Brexit Secretary that we would get exactly the same benefits when we left, and that was ridiculed the other day for thinking that we would still get a Transition Period with no deal?
My apologies , I mistakenly thought you wanted other opinions on this thread apart from your own . Hence the quote from a leading politician .
Comments
Another interpretation of course would be taking notice of The Chancellors advice on the post Brexit economy. rather than just cherry picking a headline.
Theresa Mays deal is the best available, but not as good as staying in.
I wonder if those people already struggling financially, who will become worse off, will take comfort in his opinion that her plan will deliver political benefits.
Whoopee her plan will make us less worse off than other plans. Brilliant, that's put my mind at rest.
How many people when ticking that leave box in the referendum, did so happy in the knowledge that there would be political benefits, but unaware that they may end up £1000 per year worse off.
I don't really care about Bill Cashs opinion, but I don't think you can have it both ways. The Chancellor couldn't be selling the idea of the political benefits of leaving and remaining in the EU in the same article. Even though the most sensible option would be to stay in.
There are clearly no economic benefits of leaving. There are many doubts about possible trade deals, and we have to get 65 trade deals just to make up for the ones that we will lose. I note that he says if we are able to strike them. Maybe a big if.
Which of these political benefits do you think will benefit the average working man in a tangible way?
Do you think that the average working man would prefer money in his pocket, or political benefits?
You cant eat political benefits, and food banks are likely to be busier.
The Government released its long-awaited Brexit economic scenarios on Wednesday.
This comes after other scenarios from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (Niesr) and the UK in Changing Europe think tank earlier this week.
What do they all show? Why are they different? And what is the overriding message about the economic consequences of Brexit?
What does the Government’s exercise show?
It suggest that the Brexit (broadly) embodied in Theresa May’s preferred Brexit deal and the Government’s plans to cut back migration from Europe would knock between 2.5 per cent and 3.9 per cent hit off UK GDP, relative to staying in the EU, over the next 15 years.
There would, under the Government’s modelling exercise, be a small boost to UK GDP from new trade deals. Yet these gains would be more than offset by the economic costs of new trade barriers with the EU and a hit from lower net migration.
A no-deal Brexit, on the other hand, where we merely trade with the European Union on bare World Trade Organisation rules is seen knocking 9.3 per cent off the UK’s GDP over the same period.
A simple Canada-style free trade deal is also negative, seen as holding back GDP growth by 6.7 per cent
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/every-kind-brexit-people-worse-123200010.html
even if Theresa May says otherwiseBut what’s the overall message?
It is the opposite to the one implied by Theresa May, who told the Commons on Wednesday that analysis of the impact of leaving the EU “does not show we will be poorer”.
In fact the Government’s own analysis does show precisely that. Relative to staying in the EU we will be worse off due to Brexit – and this is true even of her favoured deal.
And this official analysis is broadly in line with the credible analysis done by independent outside experts. The fact that they all produced similar results despite using different modelling techniques reinforces that message.
All the credible modelling evidence suggests that leaving the EU, from an economic perspective, is a damage limitation exercise. There is no upside
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/every-kind-brexit-people-worse-123200010.html
Who exactly is this " average working man " you speak of ?
Who exactly is this " average working man " you speak of ?
Nitpicking again, you just don't have an opinion.
You were quoting Bill Cashs criticism of what he thought The Chancellor was saying in his interview. I am not a big fan of The Chancellor, or Bill Cash.
You were criticising me for just posting the headline to this article, and pointed out that The Chancellor referred to other benefits to leaving, and that it wasn't all about the financial impact of Brexit.
My opinion is that in doing this he was trying to sell the benefits of the proposed deal. Bill Cash obviously doesn't agree with this. Why would he think that trying to sell The Prime Ministers deal to the general public could be helped by supporting the argument to stay in.
Surely if he wanted to support this argument he would have just said that we would be worse off financially, and left out the bit about the political benefits.
I don't think that me not caring about Bill Cashs opinion of The Chancellor, says anything about me, other than that.
Well that is my opinion, what about yours?
The question about the average working man is another case of nitpicking, a smokescreen to avoid answering the question, and having an opinion.
There have been three reports released during the last couple of days, one of which by this Government, all of them pretty much agree. All of them show that every Brexit option is detrimental to the economy. They vary in the amounts that the average person will be worse off by, as a result of Brexit, depending on the option chosen.
Forgive me for not celebrating your point that the current Government plan is the least worst option, and that we will not be as badly off as we could be if another plan was chosen.
The question that I asked that you don't seem prepared to answer is that if you thought that the average person would be happy with gaining political benefits at the expense of money in their pocket.
It would seem that you much prefer nitpicking about simple questions rather than answering them.
Nitpicking again, you just don't have an opinion.
You were quoting Bill Cashs criticism of what he thought The Chancellor was saying in his interview. I am not a big fan of The Chancellor, or Bill Cash.
You were criticising me for just posting the headline to this article, and pointed out that The Chancellor referred to other benefits to leaving, and that it wasn't all about the financial impact of Brexit.
My opinion is that in doing this he was trying to sell the benefits of the proposed deal. Bill Cash obviously doesn't agree with this. Why would he think that trying to sell The Prime Ministers deal to the general public could be helped by supporting the argument to stay in.
Surely if he wanted to support this argument he would have just said that we would be worse off financially, and left out the bit about the political benefits.
I don't think that me not caring about Bill Cashs opinion of The Chancellor, says anything about me, other than that.
Well that is my opinion, what about yours?
The question about the average working man is another case of nitpicking, a smokescreen to avoid answering the question, and having an opinion.
There have been three reports released during the last couple of days, one of which by this Government, all of them pretty much agree. All of them show that every Brexit option is detrimental to the economy. They vary in the amounts that the average person will be worse off by, as a result of Brexit, depending on the option chosen.
Forgive me for not celebrating your point that the current Government plan is the least worst option, and that we will not be as badly off as we could be if another plan was chosen.
The question that I asked that you don't seem prepared to answer is that if you thought that the average person would be happy with gaining political benefits at the expense of money in their pocket.
It would seem that you much prefer nitpicking about simple questions rather than answering them.
I get it ...calling you out on your comments is nitpicking
Treasury forecasts in the past have almost never been right and have more often been dramatically wrong.
As the Press Association reports, Davis said predictions the UK economy would contract by 2.1% in the 18 months after the Leave vote were unfounded, with it actually growing by 2.8%. He also said that other negative forecasts around unemployment and family incomes were also unfounded.
None of this spine-chilling nonsense came to pass.
Davis suggested a Brexit scenario in which the UK reverts to a free trade deal with the EU based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could benefit the economy. “It would involve all the choking tentacles of the EU falling away,” he said. As the Press Association reports, Davis said UK exports to non-EU countries had grown four times faster than exports to the EU.
The future of the UK economy does not lie with the EU but with the wider world.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2018/nov/28/brexit-pmqs-may-corbyn-hammond-economic-analysis-confirms-that-leaving-eu-will-make-uk-poorer-politics-live
The government has been unable to assess the vague, half-baked deal the PM is promising, but what we do know is the latest proposals are worse than even the Chequers deal.
What the analysis produced by the Treasury today does show us is that the Tories plans will leave the country poorer"
I get it ...calling you out on your comments is nitpicking
Why on earth do you think I should care about what Bill Cash thinks about The Chancellor?