[Oldmanmatt]

It's academic now - the dire economic forecasts were quite clearly far of the mark, although I doubt that will reassure those who believe their Facebook feeds are the most accurate source of information.

Surely we (The Remainians) can now all worry about the optimistic economic forecast being based on consumer spending which is just us buying shit we don't need with money don't have, probably because all the bastard Brexiteers have pushed us off this cliff and we need something to cheer us up?

Pete, I didn't even move my lips!


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[slackline]

It's not 2 consecutive forecasts of 0.6%, it's 2 consecutive upgrades to the forecasts of 0.6%, ie from 0.8% to 1.4% and then to 2%.

I don't disagree, but you misinterpreted what I wrote,  I used the '+' to indicate the change and a foot note (based on Pete's post) for clarity which you clearly didn't get to reading  '* 0.8% > 0.14% > 0.2%'

Given the newspaper financial editors use phrases like "dropped a bombshell" when describing the BoE's upgrade of growth forecast by 0.6% (Larry Elliott, Guardian) I think you can accept it is not normal.

All newspapers use sensationalist phrases to sell papers.

 

Adjusting the filter on the BoE page found the inflation reports back to 2006 (45 documents), alternatively, googling bank of England inflation report with the required year brought up the individual pdfs on the BoE site.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/default.aspx

The reports back to 1993 are available here, also on the BoE site, oddly found by googling "bank of england inflation report 2004":

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Pages/digitalcontent/historicpubs/inflationreport.aspx

Thanks for digging those out.  I'd looked under the "Statistics" section rather than the "Archive" as that was what I was after, statistics.  Specifically what I was trying to find and couldn't was a single coherent data set or pre-packaged summary showing the predictions (or changes between them), along the lines of...

Code: [Select]

year-month,forecast_gdp,forecast_cpi,change_gdp,change_cpi
1994-02,1.1,1.4,NA,NA
1994-05,1.6,1.8,0.5,0.4
1994-08,1.9,1.2,0.3,-0.6
...
2016-11,1.4,1.3,0.6,0.5
2017-02,2.0,1.9,0.6,0.6

As that would allow you to look at the data and see how frequently such upgrades to the forecast occur (you could even work out, based on the data, how frequently you would expect such an event to occur).  I can't find such a data set, and whilst it may be available across all of the historical documents I've not the time or inclination to dig it out (I'm working today). 

I'm not trying to prove pete or yourself 'wrong', rather I'd like to see the data that substantiates the claim of it being unprecedented.  I'm not the one making that claim, and openly admit to not being familiar with the data, if you are please do dig it out and summarise or plot it as a time series to convince me these are amazing times for forecast growth.

[tomtom]

It's academic now - the dire economic forecasts were quite clearly far of the mark, although I doubt that will reassure those who believe their Facebook feeds are the most accurate source of information.

Surely we (The Remainians) can now all worry about the optimistic economic forecast being based on consumer spending which is just us buying shit we don't need with money don't have, probably because all the bastard Brexiteers have pushed us off this cliff and we need something to cheer us up?

Yes didn't mark Carnegie remark that consumer debt was at a high and savings at a low.

Well - if ww3 comes along you can't take yer ££ with you can you!

[petejh]

I'm not trying to prove pete or yourself 'wrong', rather I'd like to see the data that substantiates the claim of it being unprecedented.  I'm not the one making that claim, and openly admit to not being familiar with the data, if you are please do dig it out and summarise or plot it as a time series to convince me these are amazing times for forecast growth.

It's unlikely I'll be digging through that data Slackers, I'm assuming the BBC's economics editor knows his onions when he says about the recent forecasts 'one of the most substantial increases it has ever published'.

I am interested though, as always, to know if he's correct.

[petejh]

It's academic now - the dire economic forecasts were quite clearly far of the mark, although I doubt that will reassure those who believe their Facebook feeds are the most accurate source of information.

Surely we (The Remainians) can now all worry about the optimistic economic forecast being based on consumer spending which is just us buying shit we don't need with money don't have, probably because all the bastard Brexiteers have pushed us off this cliff and we need something to cheer us up?

I think we can all share our concerns about that - same as it's ever been - without needing to divide into 'remain' or 'leave' camps to understand the reasons why.

[galpinos]

I think we can all share our concerns about that - same as it's ever been - without needing to divide into remain or leave.

But if we don't divide ourselves and give each other labels, we won't have anyone to blame?

[Offwidth]

Who's going to try to spin a negative slant on the latest quarterly growth forecast from the Bank of England then.....?

Its great news... however some context.

It's measured in pounds which are worth a good bit less than before the vote.
Much of the extra growth is based on debt fuelled consumer spending.
We haven't left the EU yet. So from that...

The complexity of cutoms integration outside the customs union is just being ignored in the politcal domain (good on UKB for banging on about it). Costs of tarrifs under WTO are much less severe than formally meeting new regulatory requirements.
Ditto for law changes if we disentangle from the EU. As I see it these hated laws can only be adopted wholesale in the main, with maybe some tinkering to keep the rabid straight banana hounds at bay.
Even if we want a deal for access there will be costs (one off departure costs and some kind of annual access fees that will dwarf the 350 million).
We can't restrict immigration to any real extent without inflicting economic damage (from the impact on farm workers or care workers  to Hospital consultants or University dons).

Then, as icing on the cake,  the western world is looking increasingly unstable medium term due to stroppy voters buying in to popularist bollocks and potentially a good bit more protectionist (certainly in the US)... neither will be good for GDP if we even have a GDP (the slim chances of war or full economic collapse must surely have increased massively... Orwellian warnings about truth and population control)

[i.munro]

Then, as icing on the cake,  the western world is looking increasingly unstable medium term due to stroppy voters buying in to popularist bollocks

Far more worrying, for me, is that in order to get to the current stage we - the UK, have chucked 200 years of representative democracy in the bin and we have no idea what it's going to be replaced with and it isn't even being discussed.

[seankenny]

I'm sorry, but I think this discussion around the latest GDP forecast is a bit silly. Not because I don't like the result (I voted Remain and clearly I'm glad that the economy hasn't tanked; we all need jobs and public services), and not because I have a problem with the forecasting (it's only a forecast, bear in mind even "actual" GDP figures get revised, etc). But more because it doesn't tell us much about where we're going.

It could simply be momentum. Or it could be a mass misreading of the situation we find ourselves in. Economists modelled the short term effects of the Leave vote on the assumption that it would be considered a shock, like the financial crisis, and so households would rein in their spending. Clearly a majority of households think no such thing, and have carried on spending. So on we go, and for how long no one knows.

But for long-term growth, clearly the effects of technological change, institutional change, etc take a really long time to filter through. Take the financial crisis. We still don't know whether we have had a decrease in the trend growth rate as a result of the crisis (or at least a decrease after the crisis). If we have, then bear in mind that the policy changes which made the crisis possible took place in the 1980s and 1990s (if my limited understanding is correct). So 20 years after the change in direction we still don't know the how that policy shift affected our growth rate.

So reading too much into one forecast... well, it passes the time.

[petejh]

I agree entirely. But, in playground talk, I didn't start it.
The fury and sounds of despair coming from people claiming we're facing economic disaster - and there were/are many in the media, politics, academia and business only too ready to offer their opinion forecasting doom - inevitably leads those who don't share their opinion to celebrate any good news that runs counter to this.

[seankenny]

I agree entirely. But, in playground talk, I didn't start it.
The fury and sounds of despair coming from people claiming we're facing economic disaster - and there were/are many in the media, politics, academia and business only too ready to offer their opinion forecasting doom - inevitably leads those who don't share their opinion to celebrate any good news that runs counter to this.

Well that's my point: you're not celebrating good news.

[jfdm]

Came across this piece in the Guardian by John Harris.
I really enjoy reading what he has got to say about politics at a local level.
I would recommend watching the video if you dont fancy the read.
It shows that for many EU workers in the UK the outlook is very bleak.
Also that if there are restrictions on immigration, it will effect many of the things we take for granted.

So yes the economy might be rosy now but it does rely on many unskilled EU workers to keep things ticking over.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/leavers-cheap-eu-labour-workers-brexiters

[petejh]

I agree entirely. But, in playground talk, I didn't start it.
The fury and sounds of despair coming from people claiming we're facing economic disaster - and there were/are many in the media, politics, academia and business only too ready to offer their opinion forecasting doom - inevitably leads those who don't share their opinion to celebrate any good news that runs counter to this.

Well that's my point: you're not celebrating good news.

'course not Sean. But if so, why are you glad?

[Jim]

bearing in mind that by definition a forecast is incorrect, it is just the best guess based on the information available at that time

[petejh]

Where were you (when we were shit) 70 pages ago when everyone was pointing out the folly of brexit according to the forecasts?

[Oldmanmatt]

Where were you (when we were shit) 70 pages ago when everyone was pointing out the folly of brexit according to the forecasts?

It's the long term projections we're worried about, not next year. The concern is the future of our kids. It might be a fools game, to speculate so, but it's rather hard to ignore.
This is where I think I see the balance/majority of forecasts look somewhat bleak.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chris j]

we - the UK, have chucked 200 years of representative democracy in the bin

Have we?! This is news, when did that happen? Did the Queen abolish Parliament while we weren't looking? Or are you talking about the recent trend for decision making by referendum, bringing power to the people with ill thought questions and second rate campaigns on all sides...

[i.munro]

At  a GE less tha 2 years ago the people were offered the choice by UKIP of a "hard" Brexit.
Despite substantial media support this was oberwhelmingly rejected - UKIP won IIRC correctly exactly one seat. The vast majority of MPs were elected on a broadly pro-European platform.

Now , without any elections having taken place, UKIP are, in effect, the Govt.
Our elected representatives are, for whatever reason, voting for the policies that the electorate explicitly rejected and only getting that oportunity because a private individual took the govt to court. The system is clearly broken.

[petejh]

At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious the major parties have a lot of other policies, other than Europe, that people voted for - to label that as 'explicitly rejecting' is simply misleading. The fact that a one issue party such as UKIP won any seats is remarkable.

Where was the explicit rejection during the democratic vote on the single issue of EU membership?

[Will Hunt]

At  a GE less tha 2 years ago the people were offered the choice by UKIP of a "hard" Brexit.
Despite substantial media support this was oberwhelmingly rejected - UKIP won IIRC correctly exactly one seat. The vast majority of MPs were elected on a broadly pro-European platform.

Now , without any elections having taken place, UKIP are, in effect, the Govt.
Our elected representatives are, for whatever reason, voting for the policies that the electorate explicitly rejected and only getting that oportunity because a private individual took the govt to court. The system is clearly broken.

This is a nonsense.

[i.munro]

Where was the explicit rejection during the democratic vote on the single issue of EU membership?

That's the point - there's been a half-assed attempt at direct democracy & as a result our elected representatives have stopped doing the job that is required of them under a representative democracy.

As for other policy areas - what is this not affecting. On the economy the Tories won (narrowly) the last election on the basis that Austerity would eventually start to workand lower the National debt. Immediately post the referendum & the internal coup that followed,  that was ditched in favour of , to all intents & purposes the economic policy of the defeated Labour party.  Foreign policy - again all out of the window now. Domestic policy - all constitutional agreements between Westminster & the devolved govts - ripped up.

[Oldmanmatt]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boogster]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.

[Oldmanmatt]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.

Of course! Bloody little shites shirking their democratic responsibilities!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jfdm]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? Do you mean to imply that everyone - literally everyone, toddlers included - must vote in order for a democratic mandate to be valid? That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.

Of course! Bloody little shites shirking their democratic responsibilities!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about those on the electoral register and not allowed to vote.
How many? I'm thinking about those working/living overseas but were not allowed to vote.