The Bank of England may have to cut rates to combat low inflation

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Informed, intelligent discussion is based on facts

Informed, intelligent discussion is based on current facts, not old, out-of-date reports.

Originally Posted by Chris

This is the central point of contention. The evidence-based conclusions in the report are *not* merely a personal opinion. Re-phrase it as much as you like, your personal opinion does not weigh the same as evidence-based conclusions.

Preface

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policymakers, practitioners and service users. The facts presented and views expressed in this report are, however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. Neither are the views expressed necessarily those of the other individuals or institutions mentioned here, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), which has no corporate view. Co-funding fromthe ESRC-funded Centre for the Microeconomic Analysis of Public Policy at IFS (grant number RES-544-28-0001) is also gratefully acknowledged.

No need for re-phrasing; it's there in black and white.

Originally Posted by Kursk

Informed, intelligent discussion is based on current facts , not old, out-of-date reports.

I look forward to you presenting some, as you haven't so far...

Originally Posted by Kursk

No need for re-phrasing; it's there in black and white.

Yes it is - it states "The facts presented ", not opinions....

Originally Posted by Kursk

No need for re-phrasing; it's there in black and white.

That's a statement of attribution. It tells us the statements are the views of the author, not their employer. It is not an attempt to equate their researched, considered conclusions with the ill-informed opinions of a random internet user.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I look forward to you presenting some, as you haven't so far...

In relation to current figures, nor have you

Originally Posted by Chris

It tells us the statements are the views of the author

And the statement I have made is the view of the author

Originally Posted by Kursk

In relation to current figures, nor have you



And the statement I have made is the view of the author

You made the initial assertion, up to you to back it up....

Originally Posted by Kursk

And the statement I have made is the view of the author

You can go on avoiding the issue as long as you like - we have proof that the views of Cribb, Emerton and Simieta are based on thorough analysis of available data. We have no proof of what yours are based on.

Thus far, we are entitled to defer to the hard work and expertise of the authors, whilst treating your views as the random, ill-informed opinion of an internet user.

Unless, of course, you are about to impress us with the as-yet unrevealed research material that has informed your opinion?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You made the initial assertion, up to you to back it up....

And you countered that assertion with, erm, nothing of relevance.

Originally Posted by Chris

You can go on avoiding the issue as long as you like - we have proof that the views of Cribb, Emerton and Simieta are based on thorough analysis of available data.

The available data is no evidence of current figures. That report is useless for informing today's debate and/or today's political decisions. It is the official form of used chip paper.

You may hold that to be the case - I suspect most people who know anything about the subject, consider it to be current enough to be useful.

[Kursk]

A week is a long time in politics. Data in this context that has an ephemeral nature is positively archaic.

People who know anything about the subject of shopping will check their purse just before they buy, not 2 years sooner

So many posts, so little proof ...

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chris

So many posts, so little proof ...

Originally Posted by Chris

Absolutely. It's all gash, in the end.

And FWIW, I agree with you!

Originally Posted by Kursk

An accurate statement but for completeness it should be qualified against the backdrop of a 4-year public sector pay freeze.

Public sector pay is way behind the private sector, on current figures.

I am glad you agree your proposition regarding "current figures" cannot be substantiated, as you have not provided any....

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I am glad you agree your proposition regarding "current figures" cannot be substantiated, as you have not provided any....

Oh for goodness sake Dick and Dom, you win by attrition, now leave me alone already

Actually, I wasn't trying to win, I was looking for any later figures than the ones I found (as I couldn't find any)...

[Kursk]

It's not currently in the public domain (if there is any that is ).

Anecdotal evidence would of course be shot down by you and your evil twin. Also, I've learned not to antagonise too much and on that note...

I'm done