shurlock

Exactly they're a bang average side in the grand scheme of things - they've spent millions in the last few years and look nowhere near league contenders. They're reliant on a 35 year old at the fag end of his career (who today was aided and abetted by some generous goalkeeping).

Thought he was poor today - lost the ball numerous times and gave United the chance to break (the only real time they looked dangerous).

Still no response Les... What did you make of the Ebell paper? Or perhaps you're trying to work out what endogeneity means and why it matters Or perhaps you're happy to let your gut decide instead.

I have not seen the assumptions behind Davey's claim -I suspect its a simplification of more careful and sophisticated work (which unlike Burrage's work attempt to control for endogeneity) but would need to see it to be able to comment. All I have done is comment on a number of Burrage's spurious claims which are conclusions to his paper and have got undeserved press, well at least from economically illiterate Brexiters (see Trident's earlier post which was all about the common market vs. single market and elsewhere the alleged benefits of non-EU FTA deals). Yet again you have not responded to these comments. Whether its the UK's productivity record or gravity trade effects you have consistently shown yourself to be out of your depth. I can't help you there pal.

It also has nothing to do with the fall in overseas students coming to the UK which has been concentrated in the private sector (i.e. language schools) and FE sector. Much of that fall can be traced to the tightening of the visa regime in 2011. Basically the poster is talking ****.

A modern day yes man? Not like the modern day idea that being opinionated is a virtue in itself? You must think Robbie Savage is a breath of fresh air pal.

Unsurprisingly no response. My comments are solely about Burrage's methods and analysis regarding comparisons of common market vs. single market and impact of non-EU FTAs. You asked me to elaborate on my original comments which were directed at those questions, remember. I did and you failed to address or refute them. You were given another chance to do so and you didn't. Do you want to try again? Give it a go Les. What's there to lose? You can't look anymore clueless than you already come across. Last time you hounded me on my background/experience (re.policy), you were made to look a fool and went quiet. In general, I have no desire to talk about myself on a public forum, much as I don't belong to Facebook, have a Twitter account or live via social media.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Caceres may start?

Les you are have typically misunderstood what the author has written (and not written) and my particular criticisms. Show me where the author compares growth in services under the Common Market vs. the Single Market to reach his staggeringly half-baked and unproven claim that UK exports would have performed better if the single market had not been created? Where is the statistical analysis to show that changes in trade volumes result directly from changes in the trade regime (customs union to single market) -as opposed to other confounding variables. Where is his evidence on the actual impact or outcomes of non-EU FTAs -that they have caused greater trade? After all two countries which already trade a lot might be more likely to form a trade agreement, so there maybe limited impact. Thought of a response to the Ebell article? Till you're capable of responding, I suggest you back to your bovril and allotment where life is simpler and easier to understand

It was a shocking night in the Brexit capital of Britain for Tranmere's most famous player after John Aldridge. If only he had quoted Mandy or maybe he did Let's be clear: it was Labour policy to vote for Article 50. It doesn't mean those MPs have undergone a damascene conversion and are now all leavers. No doubt they'll fight government policy tooth and nail if it seems the UK is heading for a hard Brexit.

Corbyn or Nuttell = the bigger clown?

I wonder whether Nuttell quoted Mandy or not.

Bless you Les. My criticism is that it doesn't even get out of the starting blocks because it's methodology is so flawed. Let's be clear - it is worse than an undergraduate econometrician. Not sure why you didn't copy or respond to the first half of my post regarding his omission of services in his comparison of the Single Market and the Common Market? Why is that Les - perhaps because you realise it misses a huge part of the picture. Most people would stop reading right there. Reread my response to Trident a few pages back. Without even the most basic controls to exclude other economic trends and factors that might have affected trade volumes and growth (e.g. systematic differences in GDP growth between the two periods given it affects trade - hence most analyses look at long-run elasticity of imports to GDP), it is impossible to make the causal and counterfactual statements that Burrage carelessly throws around. It really is peak amateur hour and bad science - equivalent to saying that Saints win fewer games today than they did in L1 and Championship and concluding they are not as good despite obvious differences in league quality and number of games played. This is not a strawman - this is effectively what he does - that you missed it speaks to your own ignorance and ultimately why you should stick to the football threads. The report is riddled with howlers. Saying that nonEU countries have concluded trade deals with larger markets than the EU misses the blindingly obvious point is that it is because they've done a deal with the EU, the world's largest market and the EU can't do a deal with itself! More seriously, no sophisticated analysis is done on the quality of those deals. Just because Switzerland or Australia have FTAs with China, unlike the EU, doesn't mean they've magically unlocked a $10tn economy. Far from it. The reality is that most nonEU FTAs are not associated with significantly greater trade flows than do countries without any trade agreement -see the Ebell work you've refused to address (note that does have proper controls). The dismal performance of most FTAs can be attributed to their lack of progress in dismantling non-tariff barriers, which are particularly important for services trade and the UK's prospects. I could go on and on but you'd have to pay me to comment in detail on s staggeringly cr*p piece of analysis. You'd be getting value for money as I can assure you my credentials are top notch

Alli- nasty, petulant little ****

Thought that's one of the perks of Thai ownership? Would suit avram to a tee.

Unbelievable. Odd timing after yesterday's decent result.

Don't follow. Government had plenty of control over immigration if it singlemindedly wanted to do something about it. Non-EU immigration is at similar recorded levels as those for the EU. Fact is outside the most fundamentalist kippers, nobody in a general election votes solely on the basis of immigration.

Not how I remember things. The Tories won by playing up their economic credentials and seriousness in tackling the deficit -all while attacking Labours supposed untrustworthiness and incompetence on the economy -not only for borrowing too much when in power but then not taking responsibility for its record. Reread the pages on here: immigration wasn't irrelevant, but it was massively overshadowed by attention on the deficit.

No mare. Scroll back and read my original criticisms. They focus on the analysis, not the author behind them. Don't you think if you're going to contrast growth of exports during the Common Market years (flatteringly) with growth of exports during the Single Market years (unflatteringly), you might want to look at services given 80% of the UK economy comes from providing services? This is particularly true since the biggest difference made by the Single Market was in the area of services. I could go into the study's failure to control for omitted variables (essential when one is making causal or counterfactual statements i.e. the UK would have been better off in a common market-type arrangement) or take account of dynamic effects (essential for any welfare analysis); but I dare say, you wouldn't understand.

Les- the civitas report is a shockingly bad piece of analysis. An undergraduate econometrician could have done a better job. The only thing I learned from it is not to trust nonleague sociologists.

Not been much appetite to tackle non-EU immigration, even as immigration from the EU was rising. The UK has always had formal 'control' over this. Indeed the UK will likely have to give up some control here as movement of people will invariably be a part of any FTA the UK hopes to sign as it attempts to mitigate the adverse effects of leaving the single market and possibly customs union.

In general agree with the post but have read and reread this sentence and don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

Whooosssshhhhh Is that a heat seeking missile finding its target. Nope it's sarcasm going over some dopey kipper's head. Keep up the good work Trident.

A consortium of multiple Chinese investors isn't very appealing (if the article is true). Has the potential to be horribly complicated.

Your naivety is endearing.