|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 29, 2017 9:04:29 GMT
This is from the National Audit Office report into the gold sales: "The requirement to sell transparently has meant that the gold sales needed to be pre-announced to the gold market and that many of the details of the programme, for example the mechanism of sale, had to be made publicly available. This contrasts with practice adopted in recent gold sales by other foreign central banks. With the exception of sales by the United States and the International Monetary Fund* in the 1970s and more recent sales by the Dutch and Swiss National Banks, gold reserve sales by overseas central banks have been carried out in secret. The UK Government's decision to sell in a transparent manner reflects an emerging but growing commitment amongst leading central banks to provide more timely and open disclosure of reserve fund movements. Moreover the Treasury believes that there is an a priori case that revenue from sales will be increased through predictability and transparency as a result of the reduction in the risk premium priced into bidders' valuations." As you can see, HM Treasury thought this practice would maximise income. The idea you keep pedalling that somehow this was Gordon Brown's fault is false and misleading! linkI think the National Audit Office(N.A.O.) is a more authoritative source than gold dealers/speculators?
|
|
|
Post by stayingupfor GermanStokie on Apr 29, 2017 9:16:45 GMT
Very very patronising. And obviously unable to read. The information as I had disclosed had come from deutsche Bank and the Lloyds business barometer that was just released. In fact looking at your own source (The guardian of all things rather than financial sectors who give fact rather than opinion) it was shown later in the day that the forecast for sterling had been raised. I suggest, rather than pontificating and trying to sound clever you do what I do and go to financial sources (livesterling, Lloyds, Commerzbank, ONCE etc) to gain an impartial viewpoint. Even Barclays who were quoted in your media source against the sluggish Q1 17 have agreed that Q2 17 is much stronger especially against Y16 for the same period.... but don't let facts get away from your arguement. Read the numbers! You are quite wrong. The figures you have posted do not support your argument Are you really that stupid??? I have read the numbers and they support a stronger performance in April 17 against April 16... and in a larger number of cases support better than expected performance. That is why I tried to make it fair by including those figures that were not as strong but never mind! I even agreed with the sluggish results in Q1 but these were countered by stronger than expected results in Q4 Y16 and strong signs for Q2 Y17.... No cherry picking, no political leaning, just pure data to support my arguement. You really don't get it do you...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 9:22:16 GMT
I think the National Audit Office(N.A.O.) is a more authoritative source than gold dealers/speculators? Selling it at it's record all time low their idea too?
|
|
liquidlen
Youth Player
Let's see how this goes then...
Posts: 487
|
Post by liquidlen on Apr 29, 2017 9:39:05 GMT
Read the numbers! You are quite wrong. The figures you have posted do not support your argument Are you really that stupid??? I have read the numbers and they support a stronger performance in April 17 against April 16... and in a larger number of cases support better than expected performance. That is why I tried to make it fair by including those figures that were not as strong but never mind! I even agreed with the sluggish results in Q1 but these were countered by stronger than expected results in Q4 Y16 and strong signs for Q2 Y17.... No cherry picking, no political leaning, just pure data to support my arguement. You really don't get it do you... Still doesn't make you right. You are misinterpreting the financial dataset you have chosen to sample! It's OK, don't worry about it. The fact of the matter is that growth in the economy is at 0.3%. What else is there to argue about? Night is night where I come from.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Apr 29, 2017 9:45:51 GMT
"The UK economy suffered a sharp slowdown in the opening months of this year, as the post-referendum rise in living costs took its toll on British households and hit consumer spending. GDP growth fell more than expected to 0.3% in the first quarter from 0.7% in the previous quarter, the Office for National Statistics said." The housing market looks like it's cooling down too! No wonder Chicken May has called an election now! Vote Now Pay Later! Thanks for that Guardian soundbite Nicholas Surely, Q4 growth isn't compared to Q1 growth is it? The prediction for Q1 was 0.4% it was 0.3%. The prediction for Q4 2016 was 0.5%. You like the Guardian so how about this one..... "UK GDP FIGURES RELEASED: Breaking: Britain’s economy expanded by 0.6% in the final three months of 2016. That’s stronger than the 0.5% expected by City economists. It matches the growth in the July-September, and shows little sign of any Brexit impact on the UK economy." - The Guardian 26th January 2017. Bish, Bish, Look! It's another one donning the italics. What'st recon!?!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 29, 2017 9:48:18 GMT
Ah Cockers. I sense you're going to have a belter of a day on this forum. Started nice and early Now, just so I'm sure of your rules. If the predictions and /or results were made last year then they're ancient history. Correct? So when were the forecasts for Q1 2017 made? Did you enjoy your holiday in Witney? I hear they like wet blankets there? Lovely thanks Wonderful part of the country. Stow on the Wold and Moreton-in-Marsh. Very nice. The Spice Room in Moreton I can recommend if you're looking for a curry in that part of the world. We also had a lunch in The Wild Rabbit, Kingham. Proper posh. Roasted Mackerel with frozen dill buttermilk to start Did you go anywhere for Easter?
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Apr 29, 2017 10:05:41 GMT
If you just parrot someone else's interpretation of data I can see why you'd think that way. If you have the capability to interpret it yourself it's easy to see why the Tories do far better with the economy, certainly in recent times. Tories squeeze everyone but when everyone then votes them out they leave a solid economy. Labour spend everything and leave nothing. Great for the average citizen but someone has to pay for it all. Data and facts stand on their own merits so don't need parroting! Only you right-wingers believe in Fake News! The last Labour government pared down much debt and as a % of G.D.P. it had fallen. How anyone could think that the Conservatives which created two not one recessions ran the economy well has a short memory! And before you mention the last recession the difference was the two Tory recessions were home grown i.e. no other economy in the world was involved whereas the last Labour recession was a world recession which began in the U.S.A.! However, I commend your efforts at portraying the Tories as the friend of the "average citizen". You mean "average" as in a Cabinet stuffed full of public school millionaires? I'm curious how increasing both the actual debt and the percentage compared to GDP equals 'paring it down'. If that's how you think economics works no wonder you think Labour did a good job!
|
|
liquidlen
Youth Player
Let's see how this goes then...
Posts: 487
|
Post by liquidlen on Apr 29, 2017 10:13:45 GMT
I'm amazed by the tone of the contributions on this thread. I start a thread about he UK economy slowing down and then half a dozen Tory Boys have hijacked it to tell us a) it's not b) it's all Labour's fault, and c) the government are doing a fine job. Oh, and i'm stupid as well! What's going on here? Standard Tory tactics on full display. No coherent argument, just a "shout down the naysayer" approach, like a bunch of farm animals braying at each other...tedious chaps, super-tedious
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Apr 29, 2017 10:26:24 GMT
I'm amazed by the tone of the contributions on this thread. I start a thread about he UK economy slowing down and then half a dozen Tory Boys have hijacked it to tell us a) it's not b) it's all Labour's fault, and c) the government are doing fine job. Oh, and i'm stupid as well! What's going on here? Standard Tory tactics on full display. No coherent argument, just a "shout down the naysayer" approach. It's tedious chaps, super-tedious. Well that's because the economy is not slowing down. It grew faster than it did at the same period last year. Compare like for like due to holidays, public events and so on.
|
|
liquidlen
Youth Player
Let's see how this goes then...
Posts: 487
|
Post by liquidlen on Apr 29, 2017 10:28:29 GMT
I'm amazed by the tone of the contributions on this thread. I start a thread about he UK economy slowing down and then half a dozen Tory Boys have hijacked it to tell us a) it's not b) it's all Labour's fault, and c) the government are doing fine job. Oh, and i'm stupid as well! What's going on here? Standard Tory tactics on full display. No coherent argument, just a "shout down the naysayer" approach. It's tedious chaps, super-tedious. Well that's because the economy is not slowing down. It grew faster than it did at the same period last year. Compare like for like due to holidays, public events and so on. I've presented with a results and forecast analysis in my OP! What's the problem with discussing the issue as opposed to discrediting it?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 29, 2017 10:30:56 GMT
Thanks for that Guardian soundbite Nicholas Surely, Q4 growth isn't compared to Q1 growth is it? The prediction for Q1 was 0.4% it was 0.3%. The prediction for Q4 2016 was 0.5%. You like the Guardian so how about this one..... "UK GDP FIGURES RELEASED: Breaking: Britain’s economy expanded by 0.6% in the final three months of 2016. That’s stronger than the 0.5% expected by City economists. It matches the growth in the July-September, and shows little sign of any Brexit impact on the UK economy." - The Guardian 26th January 2017. Bish, Bish, Look! It's another one donning the italics. What'st recon!?! You can only be ************** if you disagree with them, mate
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 29, 2017 10:36:34 GMT
I think the National Audit Office(N.A.O.) is a more authoritative source than gold dealers/speculators? Selling it at it's record all time low their idea too? The national audit office, a government department says it was not the the government's fault it sold the gold at a loss. The Bank of England effectively still a government department said no one could see the financial crisis coming, definitely not them or the government whose job it was to manage to bank of England or the banks. Nothing is ever Labour's fault I notice a trend here, i' m sure Nick can tell us al how browns tax credit raid which contributed massively to the ending of final salary pension schemes was not their fault either.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 29, 2017 10:44:15 GMT
Selling it at it's record all time low their idea too? The national audit office, a government department says it was not the the government's fault it sold the gold at a loss. The Bank of England effectively still a government department said no one could see the financial crisis coming, definitely not them or the government whose job it was to manage to bank of England or the banks. Nothing is ever Labour's fault I notice a trend here, i' m sure Nick can tell us al how browns tax credit raid which contributed massively to the ending of final salary pension schemes was not their fault either. The BoE is not a government department! It is constituted by an Act of parliament. It is independent from government except when the Governor is appointed. The Monetary Policy Committee is independent of government. I notice a trend here, you don't what you are talking about?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 29, 2017 10:46:51 GMT
Read the numbers! You are quite wrong. The figures you have posted do not support your argument Are you really that stupid??? I have read the numbers and they support a stronger performance in April 17 against April 16... and in a larger number of cases support better than expected performance. That is why I tried to make it fair by including those figures that were not as strong but never mind! I even agreed with the sluggish results in Q1 but these were countered by stronger than expected results in Q4 Y16 and strong signs for Q2 Y17.... No cherry picking, no political leaning, just pure data to support my arguement. You really don't get it do you... Well to answer your question. Yes, and then some. He's our pet monkey and his name is **************. He likes talking bollocks to men on the internet. We think he gets a little erection over it. Sometimes he's just confused and sometimes he gets angry. That why he has no real friends. Bad monkey.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 29, 2017 10:49:39 GMT
Data and facts stand on their own merits so don't need parroting! Only you right-wingers believe in Fake News! The last Labour government pared down much debt and as a % of G.D.P. it had fallen. How anyone could think that the Conservatives which created two not one recessions ran the economy well has a short memory! And before you mention the last recession the difference was the two Tory recessions were home grown i.e. no other economy in the world was involved whereas the last Labour recession was a world recession which began in the U.S.A.! However, I commend your efforts at portraying the Tories as the friend of the "average citizen". You mean "average" as in a Cabinet stuffed full of public school millionaires? I'm curious how increasing both the actual debt and the percentage compared to GDP equals 'paring it down'. If that's how you think economics works no wonder you think Labour did a good job! The key statistic is debt/G.D.P. ratio and is used to measure the burden of debt on the economy. International bodies e.g. I.M.F. use to ascertain the strength of an economy and its prospects. So, it is possible to run deficits providing the debt/G.D.P. is falling. One of Osborne's problems was his debt/G.D.P. ratio was increasing as the economy was stagnant largely due to his Austerity programme!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 10:59:39 GMT
Following arranged loans from the U.S. because they feared the British economy would collapse .....don't forget those . The crisis was caused by a run on the pound because it was believed to be overvalued! Of course, when the Tories leave office with a three day week it's not surprising two years later the economy was struggling! Of course, you Tories would have got round the problem of an overvalued pound by holding a referendum on the E.E.C. and then devaluing the pound against the dollar from $1.60 to $1.29 like now! Your selective memory springs into action once again ......well you are using google I would imagine . Remember 2010 when Labour left office ....." No money left in the drawer " was Mr Darling's parting comment to his erstwhile successor . .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 11:01:56 GMT
Thanks for that Guardian soundbite Nicholas Surely, Q4 growth isn't compared to Q1 growth is it? The prediction for Q1 was 0.4% it was 0.3%. The prediction for Q4 2016 was 0.5%. You like the Guardian so how about this one..... "UK GDP FIGURES RELEASED: Breaking: Britain’s economy expanded by 0.6% in the final three months of 2016. That’s stronger than the 0.5% expected by City economists. It matches the growth in the July-September, and shows little sign of any Brexit impact on the UK economy." - The Guardian 26th January 2017. Bish, Bish, Look! It's another one donning the italics. What'st recon!?! Shoot on sight perhaps ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 11:04:18 GMT
Tories running the economy better than Labour is simply a myth. Labour have a far better financial record when in government. This is an actual fact, not an opinion. You have proof of this presumably? He was furiously scrolling through google as you spoke
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Apr 29, 2017 11:05:43 GMT
I'm curious how increasing both the actual debt and the percentage compared to GDP equals 'paring it down'. If that's how you think economics works no wonder you think Labour did a good job! The key statistic is debt/G.D.P. ratio and is used to measure the burden of debt on the economy. International bodies e.g. I.M.F. use to ascertain the strength of an economy and its prospects. So, it is possible to run deficits providing the debt/G.D.P. is falling. One of Osborne's problems was his debt/G.D.P. ratio was increasing as the economy was stagnant largely due to his Austerity programme! I'm well aware of what it is. I happen to do this stuff for a living. The problem is the debt/GDP ration worsened under Labour and improved under Osborne. You cannot look at the absolute figures, you must look at the trend change to see the performance.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 29, 2017 11:07:06 GMT
The crisis was caused by a run on the pound because it was believed to be overvalued! Of course, when the Tories leave office with a three day week it's not surprising two years later the economy was struggling! Of course, you Tories would have got round the problem of an overvalued pound by holding a referendum on the E.E.C. and then devaluing the pound against the dollar from $1.60 to $1.29 like now! Your selective memory springs into action once again ......well you are using google I would imagine . Remember 2010 when Labour left office ....." No money left in the drawer " was Mr Darling's parting comment to his erstwhile successor . . The world had just experienced the biggest economic crash since the 1929 Great Depression. What did you expect him to say? I know! Give millionaires tax cuts off the backs of the poor, sick and disabled!
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 29, 2017 11:10:47 GMT
The key statistic is debt/G.D.P. ratio and is used to measure the burden of debt on the economy. International bodies e.g. I.M.F. use to ascertain the strength of an economy and its prospects. So, it is possible to run deficits providing the debt/G.D.P. is falling. One of Osborne's problems was his debt/G.D.P. ratio was increasing as the economy was stagnant largely due to his Austerity programme! I'm well aware of what it is. I happen to do this stuff for a living. The problem is the debt/GDP ration worsened under Labour and improved under Osborne. You cannot look at the absolute figures, you must look at the trend change to see the performance. For most of the early period of Osborne's Chancellorship it didn't improve, it got worse! It only improved around the time of the last general election. The time of Osborne's economic miracle which has resulted in growth of 0.3% last quarter! Some miracle! The last 3 years of Tory government '95 '96 '97..39% 40% 40% The 3 years of Brown's prior to world recession '05 '06 '07 38% 38% 39% No evidence here of the Tories managing the country's finances well!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 29, 2017 11:52:05 GMT
The national audit office, a government department says it was not the the government's fault it sold the gold at a loss. The Bank of England effectively still a government department said no one could see the financial crisis coming, definitely not them or the government whose job it was to manage to bank of England or the banks. Nothing is ever Labour's fault I notice a trend here, i' m sure Nick can tell us al how browns tax credit raid which contributed massively to the ending of final salary pension schemes was not their fault either. The BoE is not a government department! It is constituted by an Act of parliament. It is independent from government except when the Governor is appointed. The Monetary Policy Committee is independent of government. I notice a trend here, you don't what you are talking about? That would be why I said effectively............................
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 29, 2017 11:55:42 GMT
The BoE is not a government department! It is constituted by an Act of parliament. It is independent from government except when the Governor is appointed. The Monetary Policy Committee is independent of government. I notice a trend here, you don't what you are talking about? That would be why I said effectively............................ How is something set up independently of government still effectively under its control?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 29, 2017 12:04:52 GMT
That would be why I said effectively............................ How is something set up independently of government still effectively under its control? Hope this clears it up for you, next I will move onto helping you be able to differentiate between your elbow and your arse How the Bank of England is governed The Bank of England is owned by the UK government. Parliament has given us powers through legislation, which means that we are accountable to both Parliament and the public.The Bank is overseen by a board of directors, known as the Court of Directors, who are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Court is responsible for setting and monitoring the Bank's strategy and taking key decisions on spending and appointments. The government chooses one of the non-executive, or external, members to chair Court. We demonstrate our accountability to Parliament through the House of Commons Treasury Committee. Our Governors, Executive Directors and external Monetary Policy Committee and Financial Policy Committee members regularly appear before the committee after the Inflation Report, Financial Stability Report and Prudential Regulation Authority Annual Report are published. www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Pages/governance/default.aspx
|
|
liquidlen
Youth Player
Let's see how this goes then...
Posts: 487
|
Post by liquidlen on Apr 29, 2017 12:05:41 GMT
The key statistic is debt/G.D.P. ratio and is used to measure the burden of debt on the economy. International bodies e.g. I.M.F. use to ascertain the strength of an economy and its prospects. So, it is possible to run deficits providing the debt/G.D.P. is falling. One of Osborne's problems was his debt/G.D.P. ratio was increasing as the economy was stagnant largely due to his Austerity programme! I'm well aware of what it is. I happen to do this stuff for a living. The problem is the debt/GDP ration worsened under Labour and improved under Osborne. You cannot look at the absolute figures, you must look at the trend change to see the performance. What you and Bispham Potter? Course you do...I didn't realise Trotters Independent Traders had moved into FOREX.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 29, 2017 12:08:03 GMT
How is something set up independently of government still effectively under its control? Hope this clears it up for you, next I will move onto helping you be able to differentiate between your elbow and your arse How the Bank of England is governed The Bank of England is owned by the UK government. Parliament has given us powers through legislation, which means that we are accountable to both Parliament and the public.The Bank is overseen by a board of directors, known as the Court of Directors, who are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Court is responsible for setting and monitoring the Bank's strategy and taking key decisions on spending and appointments. The government chooses one of the non-executive, or external, members to chair Court. We demonstrate our accountability to Parliament through the House of Commons Treasury Committee. Our Governors, Executive Directors and external Monetary Policy Committee and Financial Policy Committee members regularly appear before the committee after the Inflation Report, Financial Stability Report and Prudential Regulation Authority Annual Report are published. www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Pages/governance/default.aspxParliament is not government! Only you Tories who believe in a one party state i.e. landslide majority could conflate the two?! Long Live Kim ll May!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 29, 2017 12:40:09 GMT
That would be why I said effectively............................ How is something set up independently of government still effectively under its control? BoE mandate should be regularly reviewed – Mark Carney - FT "Mr Carney said the BoE’s remit was last adjusted by then chancellor George Osborne in 2013, to provide a more flexible look at the inflation target of 2 per cent." Mark Carney to hand notes of pre-Brexit vote talks with chancellor to MPs - The Guardian "Carney said he had held private meetings with George Osborne before the 23 June vote. He agreed that the MPs could appoint someone to review the notes of those meetings but said he would be reluctant for them to be made public." Come on Cockers. BoE Governor's have been 'meeting' with Chancellor's for ever.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 29, 2017 12:49:09 GMT
Hope this clears it up for you, next I will move onto helping you be able to differentiate between your elbow and your arse How the Bank of England is governed The Bank of England is owned by the UK government. Parliament has given us powers through legislation, which means that we are accountable to both Parliament and the public.The Bank is overseen by a board of directors, known as the Court of Directors, who are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Court is responsible for setting and monitoring the Bank's strategy and taking key decisions on spending and appointments. The government chooses one of the non-executive, or external, members to chair Court. We demonstrate our accountability to Parliament through the House of Commons Treasury Committee. Our Governors, Executive Directors and external Monetary Policy Committee and Financial Policy Committee members regularly appear before the committee after the Inflation Report, Financial Stability Report and Prudential Regulation Authority Annual Report are published. www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Pages/governance/default.aspxParliament is not government! Only you Tories who believe in a one party state i.e. landslide majority could conflate the two?! Long Live Kim ll May! I'm sure no one has noticed you beating a retreat, possibly your finest moment since claiming living in Lewisham meant you were closer to stoke than someone living in northwich
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 29, 2017 13:04:02 GMT
Parliament is not government! Only you Tories who believe in a one party state i.e. landslide majority could conflate the two?! Long Live Kim ll May! I'm sure no one has noticed you beating a retreat, possibly your finest moment since claiming living in Lewisham meant you were closer to stoke than someone living in northwich You are still wrong! "Although in some of these functions the Bank act as agent for the Government, they are not a government department. Their position is determined by the Bank of England Act 1946, under which the Bank ceased to be a corporation owned by private stockholders-in whom was vested the power of appointing the Governors and Directors-and became a public corporation, the capital stock passing to H.M. Treasury." I attended dozens of meetings as a member of the MoD at the BoE. Not one of their employees saw it as a government department whereas I knew I was a civil servant! If you've got to lean on 'Northwich' for support you're in pretty desperate straits! Incidentally, have you ever either 1)worked for/at the Bank or 2)been a civil servant?
|
|
|
Post by stayingupfor GermanStokie on Apr 29, 2017 13:55:29 GMT
I'm sure no one has noticed you beating a retreat, possibly your finest moment since claiming living in Lewisham meant you were closer to stoke than someone living in northwich You are still wrong! "Although in some of these functions the Bank act as agent for the Government, they are not a government department. Their position is determined by the Bank of England Act 1946, under which the Bank ceased to be a corporation owned by private stockholders-in whom was vested the power of appointing the Governors and Directors-and became a public corporation, the capital stock passing to H.M. Treasury." I attended dozens of meetings as a member of the MoD at the BoE. Not one of their employees saw it as a government department whereas I knew I was a civil servant! If you've got to lean on 'Northwich' for support you're in pretty desperate straits! Incidentally, have you ever either 1)worked for/at the Bank or 2)been a civil servant? A civil servant? In what department may I ask? How have working practices changed for you guys over the years? More bureaucracy and legislation or have things become easier? It's a genuine question out of interest with no underlying intent.
|
|