1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brexit Discussion - The new thread

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Feek, Sep 5, 2019.

  1. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,300

    Location: Essex

    It's not subjective. It's not something that anyone can disagree upon. The data is what it is; you just don't understand it and you're perpetually confused in everything you're saying.

    We're not debating what has caused the relative decline in our performance since 2016; you're arguing that the relative decline hasn't happened at all; even though it has.

    You're essentially arguing that A = B, when to everyone else A = A and B = B. It's insane, and you've resorted to increasingly absurd and extreme obfuscation in order to try and muddy that fact.

    At first I thought it was just a couple of misunderstanding's on your part, which is why I was so patient and took such time explaining things to you politely. But now I'm not so sure.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020
  2. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,262

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Problem is gatwick doesnt function as a hub. Maybe if there was a decent railway network to get from one to the other it would work, but there isnt.
    Same with Stansted planned second runway, not happened
     
  3. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 7,276

    It would do if we build another runway there. Railway infrastructure can be upgraded too. It's a much better solution that actually has a chance of being completed, rather than bouncing around the courts for decades, with nothing getting built in the end.
     
  4. Kermit

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 27, 2002

    Posts: 2,713

    Location: UK

    We haven't got to 2016+ yet and you seem to agree (see red part of above quote). I've stated a number of times already, we discussing for now if the UK did indeed outgrow the EZ (or FRA/GER etc) by 1.5% each and every year for the last 30 years....I say no, you say yes, lets stick to that point then move onto 2016+.

    Once you can agree that we're pretty stable against those countries and the EZ (since 2001) in terms of Growth, then we can move onto 2016-2019 and I'll say ahead of time, your possibly going to gain a few points on that although we may disagree on the ratio of any relative GDP decline 2016-2019 being due to Brexit, Brexit delay or Global economics but at least we could then move on. You simply need to look at 2001 & 2015 (and 1990 to 2015 excl EZ) GDP figures in the concise table with overall percentage growth over that period then accept we haven't outgrown EZ/FRA/GER/NED by 1.5% each and every year up to 2015 otherwise our percentage would be vastly higher than the compared nation/EZ :)

    Here it is again to save going back
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020
  5. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,300

    Location: Essex

    :eek:

    Wait, I can't not address this. Do you have any idea how insane this sentence is?

    I literally just downloaded the spreadsheet of the data, calculated the average, and even demonstrated the calculations used in black and white for you.

    How on Earth in your mind is that me cherry picking a random range? I mean seriously?

    Are you just hoping that by saying such absurd and random stuff, that people won't be bothered to go back and read my actual posts? Hell, maybe that's it? You're trying to wear me down because you're embarrassed?
     
  6. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,262

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    No it doesnt

    The fundamental point of a hub is to bring all the routes into one place and then they function properly.
    If you try to run two hubs you either have to have duplicate rounts being used, or force people to keep switching hubs

    If you compare our nearest competitor hubs, in France and the NL the french are about to overtake heathrow, the dutch run many of the same routes already.

    Its simply illogical to try to have two hubs, that close together and yet with terrible time and uncompetitive travel time between them.

    I am also ignoring for now the other major factor in that Heathrow is our major exporting point as well. Again its nigh on capacity, so we are going to tryt o replace european trade, which is mainly road/ferry with these global trade deals that are likely to require extra air freight, and yet we are struggling for that capacity. Sure you COULD lay on extra from other airports but there needs to be the right demand to the right places.

    Simple heathrow is the most logical place for the capacity. yep its in a bad place, but thats history we cant change that.
     
  7. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,805

    You keep falling into the weak minded trap of letting the data dictate conclusions to you. No wonder you voted to remain! You need to take back control, show some Dunkirk spirit and find the data that proves the outcome that your gut tells you is true.
     
  8. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 7,276

    You make some good points, but we can't keep knocking down hundreds of homes, have a decade of the M25 being rebuilt around Heathrow, and deal with ever increasing air pollution. We already have planes coming in once every 30 seconds over Heathrow, and they will want a fourth runway before the third is even built. All we've done is faff around for a couple of decades and not get anything built, and the latest court challenge stalls it out yet again.

    Heathrow may be the logical place to put the capacity in a perfect world where there is the capability to build there, but in the real world that doesn't seem to be available. There is going to have to be an alternative to expansion at Heathrow, and it's going to have to be less than perfect, but something that can be attained, rather than the perfect (for airlines) solution at Heathrow that isn't going to get built.
     
  9. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 5,810

    Quite. Com'on @GordyR - Stop letting your truth be dictated to you by unelected facts!
     
  10. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,828

  11. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,300

    Location: Essex

    :confused:

    What the actual...

    This WHOLE discussion has been about the difference between our performance pre 2016, when compared with our performance post 2016.

    What on Earth are you going on about now?

    Holy crap. Go back and reread my post; again. What is wrong with you Kermit? This cannot possibly be for real? You're sitting behind your PC laughing because this is a trolling attempt and you've finally caused me to rise and bite, right?

    I literally just calculated the EXACT figures for you. Do I really have to pick them out again because you don't understand what GDP growth is, and now apparently don't even understand what averages are?

    Here's the data, go through it and calculate the GDP growth averages yourself:

    http://api.worldbank.org/v2/en/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?downloadformat=excel

    Wait, is this a joke? You want me to agree that we exhibited a reasonably stable rate of growth, relative to these other economies up until 2016? Erm, yes... That's literally the whole point. After 2016, we suddenly declined relative to them.


    No **** Sherlock. So let me get this straight, after all this time, you're know saying that you do understand that we've experienced a decline in GDP growth relative to these economies since 2016?

    Then what the hell have you been arguing? This is utterly bonkers. :confused:


    You can't disagree on that, it's literally a mathematical calculation extrapolated from the historical data. It objectively happened.

    As I've said repeatedly, you can attempt to argue for what caused that relative decline; but the fact that it happened, and by exactly what ratio, is a matter of simple historical record. The numbers are the numbers.

    This debate hasn't been about what's caused the decline, but merely the fact that you've been denying one has even occurred; at least until now.

    But this is another point I've been trying to hammer home to you - A global downturn cannot be the reason that we declined relative to these economies, because all of the economies were exposed to the same global forces.

    Something must have impacted us, that did not impact them. What's the reason that we performed so differently than how we have historically? I'll leave that up to you to work out.

    And there we go... You've just done it again. :confused:

    Read this very very very carefully:

    The UK's GDP growth rate, was on average 1-1.5 points higher than the Eurozone's GDP growth rate between 1994-2015. (1-1.5 was my original visual estimation excluding the financial crash noise; when properly calculated including the financial crash, because you wanted to include it, it turned out to be 0.78 points higher)

    How is it possible that you do not understand the difference between something growing by 1% and something having a growth rate that is 1 point higher than something else's growth rate? Every other post you repeat exactly the same thing, despite me repeatedly correcting you.

    In fact how is it possible that you keep saying this despite me breaking down in black and the actual calculations for you? Even if I hadn't corrected you, if you remotely understood the numbers you would see that yourself.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020
  12. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,828

    It's not No Deal Roulette, it's Russian roulette with an automatic pistol. No Deal is the precise and specific intention. Everything else is theatre dressing to let them put the blame somewhere else.
     
  13. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,828

    Kermit has one, it's in GD. Not sure why he feels the need to come into this one.
     
  14. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,828

  15. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 5,810

    Oh, no doubt. But the main ostensible argument was money and "all those billions we keep sending to Brussels for nothing in return."
     
  16. Kermit

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 27, 2002

    Posts: 2,713

    Location: UK

    You edited your post, where's the difference in your statement now (post edit) other than you correcting 1-1.5% to supposedly 0.78% now.....thats a a fair old change of % but there's no two statements to compare now.

    You need to stop this charade that calculating an average x points higher over Eurozone over X years is going to give meaningful results. Its so obviously BS otherwise the difference in UK's GDP between 1990 or 2001 and 2015 would be something like 20-30% (or 0.78% x years) higher than FRA, GER or EZ when absolute GDP figures are viewed and UNDERSTOOD for what they are, raw data with not much in the way of calculations required although the percentage increase is one that was worth doing. Your using some figure arrived at by your averages growth rate which seems to change from day to day and getting revised downwards which does tend to make me think your getting muddled.
     
  17. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 33,896

    Location: Co Durham

    He didnt edit his post. If you had bothered to read it he showed you it was 1.5% if you ignored the crash and 0.78% if you include it (we suffered much worse than most EU countries with the crash) and then he went on to show how it had dropped in relation to other countries since 2016.

    Both ways proves his point totally.
     
  18. sigma

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 17,164

    edit: actually it's not worth carrying this on
     
  19. Mr C

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 8, 2006

    Posts: 683

    The first thing i went and looked up after the third runway was rejected (or atleast partially delayed until they can prove it complies with the Paris agreement) was how does Heathrow compare to other airports.

    Although its from 2015 (i guess the other airports could have gotten even bigger, we DO know Heathrow still only has 2 runways)

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/d...row-two-runways-other-airports-europe-compare

    How anyone can look at those 2 images in the link (from 2015!) and still think we don't need to expand Heathrow to maintain parity with the volumes other airports are able to manage (especially with "Global Britain").

    Plus on the point of environmental concerns i can't imagine an airport at operating so close to maximum capacity all the time couldn't prove that without a third runway considerable excess pollution is currently already happening from any delays due to there being no alternative or overflow.
     
  20. Kermit

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 27, 2002

    Posts: 2,713

    Location: UK

    He did edit it because when I came back to this thread after leaving browser open I spotted the two bullet pointed statemants then when trying to quote it obviously picked up the edited version of the quotes and the two lines of different statements weren't there in the quote. Never mind though, my posts stand as they are, if he insists on sticking to +1.5% something or 0.78% something over and beyond EZ growth rate or whatever he's muddling this time, so be it. My table of actual GDPs between two periods sets out the facts for all (except GordyR) to see.

    Our GDP upto 2015 had roughly grown within a few % points over 14 & 25 years periods the same as FRA, GER & EZ (excl 25 year range for EZ). Its there in plain sight, the actual GDP figures!
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020