Monday 16th January 2017

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 3:06 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I'm sure that will catch on

He's dropped Kipper Brexit rhetorically, at least. Having given it cross party gloss.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 3:06 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote: It tells us about change over time,
It obviously doesn't do that as they don't publish the figures overtime.

Willow904 wrote:I agree it doesn't tell us anything about absolute poverty, but surely tells us a lot about monetary inequality, .

On the Oxfam approach, the poorest people in the world are newly qualified graduates of Harvard Business School with new jobs at Goldman Sachs, who are vastly poorer than subsistence farmers in Bangladesh. That is because they are using net figures.

You are richer (on that approach) than hundreds of millions (probably billions) of people combined. In those millions are all the recent graduates of universities.

All their figure really shows is the willingness in modern economies to extend credit based on human capital.

If only there was something in the report that covered this. Oh, wait, what's in the methodology note?

http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/pub ... one-620170" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 3.

In the global wealth distribution, some people we may not think of as being poor show up among the very poorest, as they are in net debt. These people may be in debt but be income-rich, thanks to well-functioning credit markets (think of the indebted Harvard graduate). A number of such cases will exist. However, in terms of population, this group is insignificant at the aggregate global level. Figure 1 shows that just 1% of people in the bottom 50% are from North America, while 70% live in low income countries.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 3:10 pm

Jez has been to Copeland.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 3:25 pm

WelshIan wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote: It tells us about change over time,
It obviously doesn't do that as they don't publish the figures overtime.

Willow904 wrote:I agree it doesn't tell us anything about absolute poverty, but surely tells us a lot about monetary inequality, .

On the Oxfam approach, the poorest people in the world are newly qualified graduates of Harvard Business School with new jobs at Goldman Sachs, who are vastly poorer than subsistence farmers in Bangladesh. That is because they are using net figures.

You are richer (on that approach) than hundreds of millions (probably billions) of people combined. In those millions are all the recent graduates of universities.

All their figure really shows is the willingness in modern economies to extend credit based on human capital.
If only there was something in the report that covered this. Oh, wait, what's in the methodology note?

http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/pub ... one-620170" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 3.
In the global wealth distribution, some people we may not think of as being poor show up among the very poorest, as they are in net debt. These people may be in debt but be income-rich, thanks to well-functioning credit markets (think of the indebted Harvard graduate). A number of such cases will exist. However, in terms of population, this group is insignificant at the aggregate global level. Figure 1 shows that just 1% of people in the bottom 50% are from North America, while 70% live in low income countries.

Right.

And, with reasons, why do you think that makes their methodology any less ridiculous?

The point of the Harvard Business school grad example is to show that because there are vast numbers of people with net liabilities (because they are borrowing against their human capital) any one of us in a credit position is inevitably richer than hundreds of millions of the 'poorest' combined. Once you add in children (who mainly have insignificant assets) the figure becomes wholly insignificant. It is the extreme example exemplifying the general problem with the methodology. Saying there aren't many of those extreme cases is to miss the point. There are good reasons why we don't measure inequality by looking at net asset positions.

What matters is the trajectory on inequality. It is getting better very quickly.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:06 pm

I see that the free market loons are out in force attacking Oxfam...touched a nerve somewhat I'd say...

Kristian Niemietz
‏@K_Niemietz

Oxfam is not a 'charity' in the sense in which most people use that term. They are a communist think tank & campaign organisation.

Right.

From the head of something or other at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

A charity. Yes, really.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:13 pm

The 'Harvard graduate' type of person are not a vast number - they are an outlier. 1% of the people in the lowest 50% match this description. Their inclusion does not affect the overall pattern.
Credit Suisse produce an annual Wealth Report which uses net assets. This has been published for a long time and is a well established source of wealth data, which is why Oxfam use it. Please let me know what other well established data sources there are which Oxfam could use?

I do not know why you keep adding in children - the report and data only covers adults. You're the one being ridiculous by trying to include them.

Inequality is not getting better, there may be fewer people in extreme poverty but the gap between richest and poorest continues to grow.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:13 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jez has been to Copeland.

Did he survive the experience?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:15 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jez has been to Copeland.
Did he survive the experience?

Any reports of what happened? Conhome say Labour are doooooooooomed. Funny that.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:24 pm

WelshIan wrote:The 'Harvard graduate' type of person are not a vast number - they are an outlier. 1% of the people in the lowest 50% match this description. Their inclusion does not affect the overall pattern.
Credit Suisse produce an annual Wealth Report which uses net assets. This has been published for a long time and is a well established source of wealth data, which is why Oxfam use it. Please let me know what other well established data sources there are which Oxfam could use?

I do not know why you keep adding in children - the report and data only covers adults. You're the one being ridiculous by trying to include them.

Inequality is not getting better, there may be fewer people in extreme poverty but the gap between richest and poorest continues to grow.

Yes they do. The number of people with nwer iabilities is huge (and more importantly the size of those liabilities bis huge, Bill Gates couldn't pay for them). Oxfam are claiming there are more poor people in the USA than in China. It is daft.It only looks true because there are far fewer creditworthy people in China.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:28 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:I see that the free market loons are out in force attacking Oxfam...touched a nerve somewhat I'd say...

Kristian Niemietz
‏@K_Niemietz

Oxfam is not a 'charity' in the sense in which most people use that term. They are a communist think tank & campaign organisation.
Right.

From the head of something or other at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

A charity. Yes, really.

The problem is, to my eyes they clearly win that argument, regardless of whether they're evil right-wingers and Oxfam saintly campaigners for justice.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:29 pm

May's BIG SPEECH scheduled for 1145 tomorrow, apparently. The fact even that basic bit of information had to be positively dragged from her office reveals much.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:30 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
WelshIan wrote:The 'Harvard graduate' type of person are not a vast number - they are an outlier. 1% of the people in the lowest 50% match this description. Their inclusion does not affect the overall pattern.
Credit Suisse produce an annual Wealth Report which uses net assets. This has been published for a long time and is a well established source of wealth data, which is why Oxfam use it. Please let me know what other well established data sources there are which Oxfam could use?

I do not know why you keep adding in children - the report and data only covers adults. You're the one being ridiculous by trying to include them.

Inequality is not getting better, there may be fewer people in extreme poverty but the gap between richest and poorest continues to grow.

Yes they do. The number of people with nwer iabilities is huge (and more importantly the size of those liabilities bis huge, Bill Gates couldn't pay for them). Oxfam are claiming there are more poor people in the USA than in China. It is daft.It only looks true because there are far fewer creditworthy people in China.

What? It says no such thing. 1% of the poorest 50% are in North America, 15% in China. FFS, Hugo, at least read the report and look at the methodology note.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:34 pm

WelshIan wrote:The 'Harvard graduate' type of person are not a vast number - they are an outlier. 1% of the people in the lowest 50% match this description. Their inclusion does not affect the overall pattern.
Credit Suisse produce an annual Wealth Report which uses net assets. This has been published for a long time and is a well established source of wealth data, which is why Oxfam use it. Please let me know what other well established data sources there are which Oxfam could use?

I do not know why you keep adding in children - the report and data only covers adults. You're the one being ridiculous by trying to include them.

Inequality is not getting better, there may be fewer people in extreme poverty but the gap between richest and poorest continues to grow.

As far as I understand it, just taking adults, the same point holds. Compare an adult in Bangladesh with a British-Bangladeshi who's buying a house on a mortgage in Oldham (an area where quite a few of them live, with cheap property). Won't the British guy look poorer on net assets?

Newly graduated Harvard folk are uber rare in world terms, but "mortgage slaves" aren't. I wonder how that makes the overall figures look.

I agree with you that the wealth of the top people certainly tells us something. Is it the best metric though.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:36 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jez has been to Copeland.
Did he survive the experience?

Seems like it. I'm sure he's very good on the predicament of the hospital, for instance. It's whether the Tories can make his broader profile and views the issue.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:42 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:The problem is, to my eyes they clearly win that argument, regardless of whether they're evil right-wingers and Oxfam saintly campaigners for justice.

And what exactly has that to do with the utter hypocrisy of someone working for an organisation which itself has charitable status throwing mud at a another charity?

Stick to the point I made eh?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:43 pm

Good morfternoon.

Michael Gove: So we're at the front of the queue?

Donald Trump: I think you're doing great!

Well, that sounds all signed, sealed and delivered, then.

I wonder what the USA will screw out of us when it comes to it.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:48 pm

WelshIan wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
WelshIan wrote:The 'Harvard graduate' type of person are not a vast number - they are an outlier. 1% of the people in the lowest 50% match this description. Their inclusion does not affect the overall pattern.
Credit Suisse produce an annual Wealth Report which uses net assets. This has been published for a long time and is a well established source of wealth data, which is why Oxfam use it. Please let me know what other well established data sources there are which Oxfam could use?

I do not know why you keep adding in children - the report and data only covers adults. You're the one being ridiculous by trying to include them.

Inequality is not getting better, there may be fewer people in extreme poverty but the gap between richest and poorest continues to grow.

Yes they do. The number of people with nwer iabilities is huge (and more importantly the size of those liabilities bis huge, Bill Gates couldn't pay for them). Oxfam are claiming there are more poor people in the USA than in China. It is daft.It only looks true because there are far fewer creditworthy people in China.
What? It says no such thing. 1% of the poorest 50% are in North America, 15% in China. FFS, Hugo, at least read the report and look at the methodology note.

Yes it does, and I have.

It is true of the bottom 50%. a large portion are Chinese (because of weight of numbers). There are lots and lots of Chinese.

But of the bottom 10% almost zero are from China, whereas North America (!) has lots (over 10%). Creditworthiness and availability again: nothing to do with poverty.

I don't mind Oxfam coming out with stuff like this really, but it is a charity in the same way the IEA is.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:52 pm

Closer to home..

'Jeremy Corbyn MP – Verified account ‏@jeremycorbyn

Figures just released by the @equalitytrust show the 100 richest families in Britain have seen their wealth increase by £55.5bn since 2010. '

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:53 pm

Is May hoping she'll crash with the Supreme Court and they might undo a bit of her hard Brexit damage to the pound?

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:54 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
WelshIan wrote:The 'Harvard graduate' type of person are not a vast number - they are an outlier. 1% of the people in the lowest 50% match this description. Their inclusion does not affect the overall pattern.
Credit Suisse produce an annual Wealth Report which uses net assets. This has been published for a long time and is a well established source of wealth data, which is why Oxfam use it. Please let me know what other well established data sources there are which Oxfam could use?

I do not know why you keep adding in children - the report and data only covers adults. You're the one being ridiculous by trying to include them.

Inequality is not getting better, there may be fewer people in extreme poverty but the gap between richest and poorest continues to grow.
As far as I understand it, just taking adults, the same point holds. Compare an adult in Bangladesh with a British-Bangladeshi who's buying a house on a mortgage in Oldham (an area where quite a few of them live, with cheap property). Won't the British guy look poorer on net assets?

Newly graduated Harvard folk are uber rare in world terms, but "mortgage slaves" aren't. I wonder how that makes the overall figures look.

I agree with you that the wealth of the top people certainly tells us something. Is it the best metric though.

If your house is worth £100,000 and you have a £90,000 mortgage then you have a net asset of £10,000? There is the affect of student loans, though, which do not have a corresponding asset attached, and the report does say that one of the risk factors for the lower groups in the US, etc is being under 35 (the others specifically mentioned are being single and being poorly educated).

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:56 pm

StephenDolan wrote:Closer to home..

'Jeremy Corbyn MP – Verified account ‏@jeremycorbyn

Figures just released by the @equalitytrust show the 100 richest families in Britain have seen their wealth increase by £55.5bn since 2010. '

Theresa's working on it with Hard Brexit.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:56 pm

Worth also pointing out that one of the IEA trustees is one Michael Hintze...

In October 2011, it was revealed that Adam Werritty, a close friend and business associate of then Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox MP, was provided with a free desk by Hintze at CQS's London base as part of his £29,000 donation to Fox's charity Atlantic Bridge.[5][35] Hintze also supplied a private jet for Fox and Werritty to fly from the United States to London in May 2011.[36] These disclosures led to the resignation of Liam Fox (who was then Secretary of State for Defence) and the dismissal of Hintze's then-charity adviser, Oliver Hylton.[37]

Well.

Worth looking in one's own backyard before throwing stones at others glass houses...if I can mix my metaphors.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 4:58 pm

WelshIan wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
WelshIan wrote:The 'Harvard graduate' type of person are not a vast number - they are an outlier. 1% of the people in the lowest 50% match this description. Their inclusion does not affect the overall pattern.
Credit Suisse produce an annual Wealth Report which uses net assets. This has been published for a long time and is a well established source of wealth data, which is why Oxfam use it. Please let me know what other well established data sources there are which Oxfam could use?

I do not know why you keep adding in children - the report and data only covers adults. You're the one being ridiculous by trying to include them.

Inequality is not getting better, there may be fewer people in extreme poverty but the gap between richest and poorest continues to grow.
As far as I understand it, just taking adults, the same point holds. Compare an adult in Bangladesh with a British-Bangladeshi who's buying a house on a mortgage in Oldham (an area where quite a few of them live, with cheap property). Won't the British guy look poorer on net assets?

Newly graduated Harvard folk are uber rare in world terms, but "mortgage slaves" aren't. I wonder how that makes the overall figures look.

I agree with you that the wealth of the top people certainly tells us something. Is it the best metric though.
If your house is worth £100,000 and you have a £90,000 mortgage then you have a net asset of £10,000? There is the affect of student loans, though, which do not have a corresponding asset attached, and the report does say that one of the risk factors for the lower groups in the US, etc is being under 35 (the others specifically mentioned are being single and being poorly educated).

Ah, I get it now. Thanks.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:00 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
WelshIan wrote:
What? It says no such thing. 1% of the poorest 50% are in North America, 15% in China. FFS, Hugo, at least read the report and look at the methodology note.
Yes it does, and I have.

It is true of the bottom 50%. a large portion are Chinese (because of weight of numbers). There are lots and lots of Chinese.

But of the bottom 10% almost zero are from China, whereas North America (!) has lots (over 10%). Creditworthiness and availability again: nothing to do with poverty.

I don't mind Oxfam coming out with stuff like this really, but it is a charity in the same way the IEA is.

The North Americans in the bottom decile are outliers. That is why you have to take care in comparing this decile to the others.
The reasons why they are there have been explained, and why the report compares the bottom 50%.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:01 pm

WelshIan wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
WelshIan wrote:The 'Harvard graduate' type of person are not a vast number - they are an outlier. 1% of the people in the lowest 50% match this description. Their inclusion does not affect the overall pattern.
Credit Suisse produce an annual Wealth Report which uses net assets. This has been published for a long time and is a well established source of wealth data, which is why Oxfam use it. Please let me know what other well established data sources there are which Oxfam could use?

I do not know why you keep adding in children - the report and data only covers adults. You're the one being ridiculous by trying to include them.

Inequality is not getting better, there may be fewer people in extreme poverty but the gap between richest and poorest continues to grow.
As far as I understand it, just taking adults, the same point holds. Compare an adult in Bangladesh with a British-Bangladeshi who's buying a house on a mortgage in Oldham (an area where quite a few of them live, with cheap property). Won't the British guy look poorer on net assets?

Newly graduated Harvard folk are uber rare in world terms, but "mortgage slaves" aren't. I wonder how that makes the overall figures look.

I agree with you that the wealth of the top people certainly tells us something. Is it the best metric though.
If your house is worth £100,000 and you have a £90,000 mortgage then you have a net asset of £10,000? There is the affect of student loans, though, which do not have a corresponding asset attached, and the report does say that one of the risk factors for the lower groups in the US, etc is being under 35 (the others specifically mentioned are being single and being poorly educated).

Right and so WHY are people prepared to extend large loans to young students at universities. If they were companies they would be insolvent as their assets are clearly nowhere near enough to meet their liabilities? Why aren't the young at Goldman Sachs among the poorest in the world?

Because of HUMAN capital which does not appear in balance sheets. Young graduates have enormous earnings potential. THAT asset, their ability to earn money in the future, doesn't appear in a balance sheet.

They aren't poor. They're rich. Measure that wealth by the income they can generate through their human capital. Just looking at what they own and subtracting what they owe, as Oxfam does, is daft.

(Sorry for capitals).

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:03 pm

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Michael Gove: So we're at the front of the queue?

Donald Trump: I think you're doing great!

Well, that sounds all signed, sealed and delivered, then.

I wonder what the USA will screw out of us when it comes to it.

I expect he and his allies will want to export lots more farm products. Going to be hard for May to square with her base.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:11 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
WelshIan wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: As far as I understand it, just taking adults, the same point holds. Compare an adult in Bangladesh with a British-Bangladeshi who's buying a house on a mortgage in Oldham (an area where quite a few of them live, with cheap property). Won't the British guy look poorer on net assets?

Newly graduated Harvard folk are uber rare in world terms, but "mortgage slaves" aren't. I wonder how that makes the overall figures look.

I agree with you that the wealth of the top people certainly tells us something. Is it the best metric though.
If your house is worth £100,000 and you have a £90,000 mortgage then you have a net asset of £10,000? There is the affect of student loans, though, which do not have a corresponding asset attached, and the report does say that one of the risk factors for the lower groups in the US, etc is being under 35 (the others specifically mentioned are being single and being poorly educated).

Right and so WHY are people prepared to extend large loans to young students at universities. If they were companies they would be insolvent as their assets are clearly nowhere near enough to meet their liabilities? Why aren't the young at Goldman Sachs among the poorest in the world?

Because of HUMAN capital which does not appear in balance sheets. Young graduates have enormous earnings potential. THAT asset, their ability to earn money in the future, doesn't appear in a balance sheet.

They aren't poor. They're rich. Measure that wealth by the income they can generate through their human capital. Just looking at what they own and subtracting what they owe, as Oxfam does, is daft.

(Sorry for capitals).

I can't speak for the US, but in the UK you'll find the entire risk of student loans is underwritten by the government at taxpayer's expense and when the amounts being written off begin to become clear as the first student loans come to term over the next few years this will become very apparent.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:14 pm

It's a house of cards.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:16 pm

An over-financialized, under-regulated, under-taxed house of cards.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:20 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Closer to home..

'Jeremy Corbyn MP – Verified account ‏@jeremycorbyn

Figures just released by the @equalitytrust show the 100 richest families in Britain have seen their wealth increase by £55.5bn since 2010. '
Theresa's working on it with Hard Brexit.

There's a lot of uncertainty around Brexit but as long as the tories are in charge it isn't going to make those families poorer.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:36 pm

gilsey wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Closer to home..

'Jeremy Corbyn MP – Verified account ‏@jeremycorbyn

Figures just released by the @equalitytrust show the 100 richest families in Britain have seen their wealth increase by £55.5bn since 2010. '
Theresa's working on it with Hard Brexit.
There's a lot of uncertainty around Brexit but as long as the tories are in charge it isn't going to make those families poorer.

If asset prices fall, then they'll get poorer.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:41 pm

Willow904 wrote:
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK you'll find the entire risk of student loans is underwritten by the government at taxpayer's expense and when the amounts being written off begin to become clear as the first student loans come to term over the next few years this will become very apparent.

According to the Telegraph, privatizing the loans is back on the political agenda. I'm surprised because you'd think that would mean a load of write-offs would have to be made and a not particularly impressive price obtained.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:48 pm

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 47s47 seconds ago

Northern Ireland assembly elections to be held on 02 March 2016, James Brokenshire announces:

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:48 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In which Gove compares his interview with Trump to Michael Foot writing.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:48 pm

See Roger above.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:50 pm

Northern Ireland assembly elections announced

Election will take place on 2 March, James Brokenshire announces, after deadline passes, triggering collapse of powersharing executive

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -announced

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:50 pm

HindleA wrote:NI elections 2nd March

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -announced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whoops!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:52 pm

@RogerOThornhill

And whoops to you, too!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:54 pm

No matter - just shows how on the ball we all are!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 5:54 pm

Good excuse for Theresa May to say, "I'd have told you more but, you know, Northern Ireland . . . "

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 6:01 pm

Not sure if mine was over the line or not.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 7:00 pm

Michael Gove: Donald Trump's trade comments strengthen UK's Brexit negotiating hand

The president-elect said he wanted a deal sorted “very quickly” when he moves into the White House and suggested he would discuss the matter with Theresa May when they meet in coming months.

Mr Gove said he believed Mr Trump wanted an agreement “signature ready” for when the UK leaves the European Union, something that is not expected to happen before 2019.

“This is another card in the Prime Minister’s hand, another arrow in her quiver because the European Union until now has been assumed to have a better hand to play, but the Prime Minister we know see has actually cards in her hand, including from candidate Trump, which will enable her I think to secure a better deal,” he told the Today programme. ... strengthen.

The pound rallied on the news. Except that it dived.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 7:07 pm

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... -2017-0013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

House of Commons Library

Impact of DWP policies on low income households

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 7:13 pm

We're paying his salary.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 7:15 pm

I'm wondering how "we'll do a deal with Trump" is any kind of negotiating card with the EU. It's a boost for Trump if we leave ourselves isolated and have to do a deal with him.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 7:18 pm

Is May going to put off Article 50 because Northern Ireland?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 7:21 pm

Oh dear...

Backstreets Magazine
‏@backstreetsmag

The @BStreetBand pulls out of NJ Inaugural Gala citing “respect & gratitude” for @Springsteen & ESB. Statement here: http://www.backstreets.com/news.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wondered the other day whether there would be pressure on them not to use songs by The Boss...

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 8:11 pm

Wow. It turns out that the Kippers never contacted the Police about their 100,000 strong march. It was never happening, was it?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Watch the Kipper dying on his arse in the follow up.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 8:18 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... u-wish-for" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A UK trade deal with Trump? Be careful what you wish for
An agreement with the US could instantly shatter the Brexiters’ dream of ‘taking back control’, limiting sovereignty in key areas

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Jan, 2017 8:22 pm

http://www.gponline.com/nhs-data-prove- ... le/1421046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NHS data 'prove PM wrong' on GP access as nine in 10 practices open beyond core hours