Thats odd the new PM can choose anyone he/she wants her new cabinet can be entirely different.

The unemployment numbers are a government statistic you actually believe that about 10,000 more people get work each month?

Add part time workers who have been 'managed' out of the figures by Whitehall and you would have 3 million out of work now.

Everything is a fiddle.

Not entirely credible, as it's the LSE, but I get the impression you're the type to lap up whatever they say:

[Link]

Most forecasters predicted that the impact of Brexit on the economy and investment would be negative even in the short term. They definitely have been proved wrong. The UK’s real GDP grew by 2% in 2016, well above predictions. Since the referendum, the country’s economy has grown faster than that of the eurozone. Business investment, employment and stock market performance have all exceeded expectations.

According to UNCTAD, inward FDI to the UK surged to US9 billion in 2016, the second highest in the world, behind the US, representing a six-fold increase over the 2015 total (when the UK ranked 12th). Of the total, 1 billion was due to one mega-deal acquisition, but notably this was finalised after the Brexit referendum.

As for the IMF, I don't "try to use" the stats in any shape or form: I referred to them, and did so qualitatively. Your claim I "tried" (and presumably failed) to "use them" in an unqualified way is utterly pathetic and decidedly condescending. I said "Another upwards growth adjustment from the IMF". Is this incorrect? Was there an upwards growth adjustment, or are they predicting a slowdown?

The claims:
The IMF stated Brexit would trigger a recession. -0.3% GDP growth for Q3 2016.
Lagarde (why isn't she in prison yet?): "Pretty bad to very, very bad".

The reality:
The actual growth was the fastest in the G7.
You are wibbling about a 0.2% downwards adjustment.

Question:
What was the IMF projected growth for 2018 during their scare-fest back before the EU referendum?
Screw it, I'll answer for you (yes, I'll "try to use the stats"

IMF Brexitageddon:
2016: 1.1% (actual growth: +1.8%)
2017: -0.8%
2018: 0.6%

Let's compare to their projections as of now:
2017: 2.0% (+2.8%)
2018: 1.5% (+0.9%)

So yes, well done trying to temper the positive outlook with "but, but, they're DOWNGRADING GROWTH by 0.2% in 2018 - zOMG! OMG!". The IMF has had to issue upwards growth adjustments (from memory) three times since the referendum. Nothing to say they won't do so again for 2018. Nothing to say they will as well - that's the problem with reading tea leaves.

As you seem so very keen to quote Nobel prizewinning Economists (lol - I mean Joseph "the Euro is a threat to the future of Europe" Stiglitz?), perhaps you might introspect somewhat with this, and consider if perhaps you've been "phooled":

[Link]

De todos modos, I'm not really going to be issuing put-downs to each of your posts throughout the run-up to the GE. It would seem you have more time to spend on here than I (though you were sorely missed for the EU to-ing and fro-ing on here), but I'll be sure to have a skim-through and a chuckle as often as I can.

Finally some evidence! However...

Why use IMF figures if you're so critical of them? And if you use them you shouldn't then leave out the bit where they talk about them being MORE pessimistic about the long term than pre-referendum despite upgrading short term estimates. You also ignore the reason for growth and the underlying structural problems in the economy, added to the fact that GDP is a pretty imperfect measure of living standards or how an economy is faring.

That article basically just says most people are confident about FDI post-brexit however this will depend on what deal we end up with. It also talks about opportunities for the UK to deregulate and further cut corporation tax, both of which would be bad for the economy. Also it doesn't really address the fact that much of the 2016 FDI was opportunistic and as a result of a cheap pound. The value of sterling is a barometer of investor confidence in the underlying economy.

The article doesn't deal with what FDI would have been like in the absence of Brexit, just that "it will remain robust, probably".

I'm not sure I get the point of your Akerlof article. Stiglitz' views on the Euro are pretty reasonble, but not sure how they are relevant to either Brexit or the upcoming GE. When mentioning him I've been discussing his work on the causes, impacts and solutions for inequality and how he highlights the damage that it does to an economy.

I readily admit growth figures for 2017 are better than predicted pre referendum but the impact of Brexit positive or negative won't be fully felt simply in the short term. The GDP figures or CEO confidence surveys don't scratch beneath the surface.

I still haven't read anything that says Brexit will be better than the alternative. Just it's not been that bad yet and might not be.

In terms of the GE the Tories deserve to lose irrespective of Brexit for reasons outlined previously.

I home tutor kids with terminal illness. Don't get paid if kids too sick to be tutored.

Many carers are hardly paid anything,
Nurses have to get into a mountain of debt to qualify now, so rather putting money into the economy when they qualify, it goes to the financial/banking sector. Same for teachers and (I may be wrong) police.

It's hardly an incentive to go into these professions is it. Tory policy, fleece those that help society.

No but they didn't have to get into s***loads of debt to work for the public in the public sector.

Actually Cameron's big society was a drive to replace public services with Local Charities and volunteer work etc., to which many Charities objected as it was tantamount to fleecing them.

Everyone has long memories round here, NOT.

You mean they actually had to do something for all the money they pay themselves?

Do you know how much of donations actually goes to the needy? Not much.

It seems a lot more than you, when it comes to local charities.

It calls for someone pretty blinkered to miss the word local in a post, if you are old enough to recollect the policy was about replacing all manner of services with local volunteers.

@ elegrande, that does not make sense do you want to elaborate. If you are strictly having a go at public sector workers the problem was not the increase in wages to parity with the private sector but the failure to deal with the pension issues and similar benefits and perks across all sectors of Central Government, Local Government, Public Sector functions and the many Quangos that still exist.

That includes all those pig swilling Tory MPs benefiting from one of only two pension arrangements in the UK that is not impacted by HMRC rules.

Edited by pefwin (21 Apr 2017 8.09pm)

Maybe if labour hadn't increased the public sector trough by over 600,000 there might have been more wage rises.