ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
We are blessed with comedy politics. Then we realise the joke is on us
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
Properly interesting. Thanks
Certainly accords with my experience. I started driving abroad early in life - in my 20s, and it took maybe a decade to get completely used to it - ie to a place where I would never forget which side of the road to drive on, whether it was left or right
Now it is instinctive, and - more pertinent to your point - I can switch between them seamlessly, like using one hand over the other if you are ambidextrous. They do feel like two distinct but similarly easy tasks
The same applies to driving automatic or with a gearbox, I reckon. At first it can be tricky to switch between, but eventually it becomes reflexive
And me.
The relatively recent understanding is that the brain starts re-dedicating space and connections from dormant activities to new tasks much quicker than was thought. If you put on a blindfold, within a very short time - days and perhaps even hours - your brain will start prioritising the other senses at the expense of your eyesight. There's a theory that this is the real purpose of dreams - to keep the visual parts of your brain active, and hence prioritised, even when you are asleep.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
When we could have the prospect of the sunlit uplands of PM Penny Mordaunt.....
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
It was not @Leon who chased Alastair Meeks off this forum. He left because of a spat with another poster. I know because I was there when it happened, as were others.
You have made this accusation twice now against @Leon. It is unjustified and you really owe him an apology.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
Properly interesting. Thanks
Certainly accords with my experience. I started driving abroad early in life - in my 20s, and it took maybe a decade to get completely used to it - ie to a place where I would never forget which side of the road to drive on, whether it was left or right
Now it is instinctive, and - more pertinent to your point - I can switch between them seamlessly, like using one hand over the other if you are ambidextrous. They do feel like two distinct but similarly easy tasks
The same applies to driving automatic or with a gearbox, I reckon. At first it can be tricky to switch between, but eventually it becomes reflexive
I've always thought driving was about making as many things as subconscious as possible. I have been helping my daughter learn and you can see when you start out that actually thinking about gears, biting points, handbrakes, steering, traffic and speed all at once is completely overwhelming. As you learn more and more becomes subroutines so you can concentrate on the really important stuff like not hitting anyone.
When I have driven on the continent or the US I have found it perfectly ok but much, much more tiring than it is at home. This is simply because I can no longer trust my automatic instincts and can, if I am not careful, find myself on the wrong side of the road after turning at a junction, for example. So I actually have to pay attention and that increases the risk that I miss something important.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
I found something similar to this with languages. For about a decade I used to work for a French company in Norway on a rotation and then, on occasion, teach at the headquarters of the company in Paris. Norway work was in Norwegian and English, and teaching was either teach in French and explain in English of teach in English and explain in French.
My problem I found was that when I first arrived in either Paris or Norway after an extended period in the other country my brain had trouble adjusting to the change. English was fine but, for the first few days after arriving Paris, if someone spoke to me in French my brain would say 'ah, foreign language' and would default to Norwegian and I would answer in that language. The same for the first few days back in Norway, I would automatically default to French.
The effect never wore off even after a decade. It seems my brain can handle English and one other language but goes into meltdown when a second new language is introduced.
High-level skills can quickly deteriorate when not used.
I once lived in Spain for six months, and on returning home through France realised I’d forgotten even basic French.
I’ve not flown a plane for a decade, there’s very good reasons that the next time I do, it will be several flights with an instructor before being allowed to go up solo.
Left and right handed cars though, no problem at all, even with manual gearboxes. Some skills eventually become so ingrained they get stored in the long term memory.
I have heard it said that one of the most perishable skills is landing a conventional aircraft on a carrier. That even after a few weeks off, refresher training is required.
Scuba diving needs constant refreshment
I do it sporadically (I wish I did it more) and almost every time I do, I need an hour or two of basic tuition, at first
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
Yep - I do. I understand that while the UK needs the EU more than they need us, EU member states would still like better access to the UK market than they get currently and that, generally, the EU is made stronger by having a smooth, trust-based relationship with the UK.
You do this stuff for a living, and you’re not prone to lying fantasies, so I am happy to take it on trust. I sincerely hope you are right
If Starmer can fix some of this shit it would be great. I have long thought it would be a Remainer that might make Brexit work, as so many Brexiteers are ideologically wedded to a Platonic ideal of Brexit, and the more pragmatic Leavers - eg Hannan - have generally left the scene
And we agree that none of this can happen until Boris goes. He REALLY needs to go.
A rare moment of concord on PB
But you are wrong about remoaner ultras. They exist in numbers. @Scott_xP is far from alone in his dogmatism
I do not come across them except on here and on Twitter. I agree with them that leaving the EU was a mistake, but we have to move on from that. If they can't do it, they are going to be permanently disappointed. It is no way to lead a life.
You don't read the Guardian, then. The Labour Party's very own newspaper
From Polly Toynbee to Nick Cohen to Martin Kettle to dozens of others, they are all Rejoiners, they are merely staying reasonably quiet for now, so as not to scare the horses.
That will change as Starmer gets nearer to power. I expect the first Guardian editorial or lead columnist to suggest rejoining the SM within the year
We will rejoin at some point unless the EU blows up. Staying out will make us poorer, and people don't like being poor. And anti-EU sentiment is far stronger in the generation that will die in the next 20 years than among those who will still be alive and voting. Aligning ourselves with the SM is an intelligent first step in that process. Of course we will have people advocating that - a Tory MP no less already has. None of this will happen quickly though. Perhaps you will have exited to the great free holiday in the sky by the time it happens. Perhaps I will have, too.
Nah. The EU is heading in a direction we can never accept and the longer we are out the more those differences will become apparent.
What I do think will happen at some point is we will join EFTA and probably the EEA. But I would say that as it has always been the best result in my view.
The EU is not heading very clearly in any direction at all. It is as likely to blow up as to become a coherent single federal state in my opinion, and more likely to continue to muddle along as a collection of sovereign states who make some decisions collectively. It will probably see an increasing division between an inner, more integrated, core and the rest. The UK could easily find a berth in that outer ring in ten or twenty years - a wasteful and damaging journey back to where we would have been anyway.
Why bother and suffer all the inevitable pain of the political and social problems associated with the EU when the trading partner route lies with EFTA and the EEA. If we will end up anywhere closer to the EU it is there. As long as EFTA exists it will always be viewed as preferable to full EU membership.
I am not bothered either way TBH but being a rule taker not a rule maker isn't without frustrations of its own (especially as the UK was pretty influential in writing the rules when it was an EU member).
Wrong in both instances. The 'rule taker' idea is simply a myth that was propagated by EU supporters who were worried that EFTA membership was seen as a viable alternative.
And given that so much of the decision making inside the EU is now by QMV the idea that we were influential in that is also a very dubious assertion.
Not really true Richard. QMV was inevitable after the expansion east which was largely driven by the UK in the face of French scepticism. Additionally the adoption of what were once seen as Anglo-Saxon attitudes on deregulation of state industries in Europe would not have happened without British membership. The Europeans were hugely influenced by Thatcherite economics even though they, and the Brexiteers would never want to admit it.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 23m The lack of any ambition - any ambition at all, let alone any urgency - to see interest rates normalise to levels consistent with healthy medium-term economic growth is quite remarkable & has been a (perhaps the) major policy failure of the past decade.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The upcoming by-elections will predicate something, I think.
The objective evidence so far, is that they will be in the "worse possible results" category.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
I didn't say Roger is witless. I said his remark is. And it is. There is no way Britain is "losing 4% of GDP every year because Brexit". So, no it was not "ad hominem"
Besides: what do you expect me to do? Ignore an obviously false statement out of politeness? Say "Well done Rog on your great insight", even though it is clearly and foolishly wrong?
If I say something as daft as that - and it hardly unknown - please feel free to call my remark witless. I won't complain, I will thank you for pointing out my egregious error
And I'm sure if you asked Mr Meeks why he left PB, his answer won't be "because people chased me off"
An economist writes: Actually Roger is absolutely right and you have misunderstood what he has said. Since I don't engage in ad hominem remarks I won't call you witless. GDP is a flow concept. It measures the amount of output (or equivalently spending or income, the three are theoretically equivalent) produced in a given economy over a given period of time. The statement that Brexit has cost us x% of GDP per year (I won't comment on whether x is 4 or some other number as estimates differ, but FWIW 4 seems reasonable and is in the ballpark of the BOE and OBR estimates) means that the level of GDP is 4% below what it would have been if we hadn't Brexited, every year or every quarter. It doesn't imply lower GDP growth for ever, simply a permanently lower level of GDP vs this counterfactual. I hope this helps.
lol. So we Brexited six years ago and we've lost (on average?) 4% GDP a year and our economy is now about 20% smaller than it was in 2016? Crumbs!
Or is this from 2020 when we actually Brexited so we've lost 4% and counting, except that of course Covid intervened in 2020 and we lost about 10% of the economy due to that, then regained it, and how anyone can perceive actual Brexit effects in the middle of a global plague and now a war, fuck knows
And of course Roger said we are "losing 4% of GDP a year". Which means - in normal, sane English - 4% every year. If I say I earn about £30k a year, I mean every year. Otherwise I would specifiy "THIS year"
Apart from that, your comment is mere sophistry. I will refrain from calling it witless, in case I upset @Heathener
Again I think you are misunderstanding how GDP works. Saying GDP is 4% lower every year than it would have been otherwise does not involve the economy shrinking by 4% every year. Since GDP is a measure of national income, the simplest analogy is with personal income. Imagine you lose your job and your new job pays 4% less than your old job. Every year you are earning 4% less than you would have been if you stayed in your old job. This doesn't mean that your pay is going down by 4% every year.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The upcoming by-elections will predicate something, I think.
The objective evidence so far, is that they will be in the "worse possible results" category.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
They have some stuff on penises and Gary Neville's truth and reconcilliation committee to bring out. Id see a doctor if i had some stuff on my penis tbf. Or rather i'd try but not get past the reception revolutionary guards.
Never understood why Brexit folk never went for EFTA/EEA, would have avoided the political integration they feared, but retained economic benefits and avoid NI problems. Also would have been a classic British conservative compromise.
The romantic theological Brexiteers, inspired by folk like Farage and Cumming won the day and steered us on to this rock.
FoM is the answer. What should have happened , and still should, is this answer (EFTA/EEA) combined with a negotiated derogation from FoM. This requires both EU and UK acting as grown ups. The political cover required to make it uniquely possible is the fact that it resolves most of the island of Ireland issues.
While lots of people wanted to leave the EU there would never have been a majority without the promise of FoM.
No, we could solve the Northern Ireland protocol issue instantly by agreeing to be in the single market for goods and services (just as Northern Ireland is). Nothing to do with freedom of movement for people. The ONLY downside is that it means accepting EU standards. But they are currently EXACTLY the same as our standards, and we have only the vaguest ideas on what we might like to change (some gene editing, maybe, some unspecified resitrictions that we might drop). We could probably negotiate a side-agreement that if we make goods that don't meet EU standards, they must have a label "not for exports to the EU", so if we really want to create a gene-edited strain of pig or something we could still do it.
I genuinely don't see the problem, except frankly unrealistic petty nationalism ("We won't accept foreign standards for what they import from us!").
Apart from the NI special case, is anyone in the SM for goods and services without both FoM and the jurisdiction of the ECJ + giving the power to the EU of legislating for us?
What makes you think this is an option? If it were there would have been a majority in parliament for it.
It's always been an option from the EU side. But you're right that it does mean accepting the ECJ as court of arbitration if we insist on trying to export something to them that they don't want. But is that the end of the world, if in reality we want to have the same standards? After all, if the EU introduces some weird and unacceptable requirement that fish fingers must be wrapped in linen or something, we can just refrain from trying to export that particular product to them - in that event, they wouldn't import it anyway. Essentially the deal would be that the default is free movement of goods and services meeting EU standards, unless the item is labelled "not for export to the EU". Free movement of goods in what's happening in NI right now, and I've not heard of a single case of a NI producer finding it problematic, have you?
I believe this is basically the EEA position too, no?
You're ignoring the main point (deliberately?)
Can we have Single Market access without offering Free Movement of People??
Surely this is impossible. It's the whole crux of Brexit. But if we can have SM access without FoM then let's do it tonight
Of course we can in the sense that there's no law of physics preventing it.
But it does require the EU to realise that it's not the end of the world to allow it.
The four freedoms are an absolute condition for MEMBERSHIP. I've never heard that they are an indissoluuble molecule for agreements with third partes. I think they'd count it as a win that we'd accepted the ECJ to rule on whether goods were acceptable in the EU - after all, we can't force the EU to take stuff they don't want anyway.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
Properly interesting. Thanks
Certainly accords with my experience. I started driving abroad early in life - in my 20s, and it took maybe a decade to get completely used to it - ie to a place where I would never forget which side of the road to drive on, whether it was left or right
Now it is instinctive, and - more pertinent to your point - I can switch between them seamlessly, like using one hand over the other if you are ambidextrous. They do feel like two distinct but similarly easy tasks
The same applies to driving automatic or with a gearbox, I reckon. At first it can be tricky to switch between, but eventually it becomes reflexive
I've always thought driving was about making as many things as subconscious as possible. I have been helping my daughter learn and you can see when you start out that actually thinking about gears, biting points, handbrakes, steering, traffic and speed all at once is completely overwhelming. As you learn more and more becomes subroutines so you can concentrate on the really important stuff like not hitting anyone.
When I have driven on the continent or the US I have found it perfectly ok but much, much more tiring than it is at home. This is simply because I can no longer trust my automatic instincts and can, if I am not careful, find myself on the wrong side of the road after turning at a junction, for example. So I actually have to pay attention and that increases the risk that I miss something important.
Yes, but not just driving, everything. New languages, musical instruments, dancing, standing on one leg, whatever. Hence the saying that to become proficient at anything simply requires however many thousand hours of repetition, while your brain re-programs itself.
When I was learning to fly an aircraft, landing is the most difficult bit, and I naively thought that reading lots of books about how to land an aircraft would help. Which of course they didn't, simply giving me more to think about when doing it and slowing my brain down even more. The instructor was insistent I forget the books and we simply go round and round doing it, and although I never got enough hours in to become instinctive, he was right that the brain learns physical tasks by doing and repetition, not by thinking.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
When we could have the prospect of the sunlit uplands of PM Penny Mordaunt.....
Pillocks.
Operation Save Bald Dog have crosshairs on Penny now most likely? 🫣
I’m so sorry Marq, and all Marq posters 😕 the coming months are going to be hell. But for Horse Battery and all the PB horse battery’s this situation is shit and giggles 🫤
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
I found something similar to this with languages. For about a decade I used to work for a French company in Norway on a rotation and then, on occasion, teach at the headquarters of the company in Paris. Norway work was in Norwegian and English, and teaching was either teach in French and explain in English of teach in English and explain in French.
My problem I found was that when I first arrived in either Paris or Norway after an extended period in the other country my brain had trouble adjusting to the change. English was fine but, for the first few days after arriving Paris, if someone spoke to me in French my brain would say 'ah, foreign language' and would default to Norwegian and I would answer in that language. The same for the first few days back in Norway, I would automatically default to French.
The effect never wore off even after a decade. It seems my brain can handle English and one other language but goes into meltdown when a second new language is introduced.
I suspect the answer is that when you learn something closely related to another that is already instinctive, the brain starts off by 'building out' or 'copying over' from the skills you already have and - like in that bike experiment - the last stage is the breaking of links between two similar but separate tasks, and to reach that stage requires a lot of practice. Until you reach that point there is some sharing of connections that means you risk confusing the two or find it harder to switch. Thus in your case the same connections were being used for both foreign languages, with the most recently used dominating the connections.
Certainly using Leon's example, I can relate to the early days of driving on the right where it was all too easy to forget and set off on the wrong side, or get a complicated junction wrong. And, later when I was more experienced abroad, still making the occasional reverse mistake at home in the days after returning.
Now, I can switch between one and the other without any difficulty of mishap, and the only time I even notice when away is if I run into some particularly fiendish road layout which needs working out from scratch - basically the same as if you encountered similar at home.
Telling someone it's 'easy', when you can already do it, isn't particularly helpful, any more than telling someone that since you learned piano, they can too.
You last sentence, of course, is why very talented sports stars rarely make good coaches. It's come easily to them, and they Jost don't 'understand' why it's so difficult for others.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
I found something similar to this with languages. For about a decade I used to work for a French company in Norway on a rotation and then, on occasion, teach at the headquarters of the company in Paris. Norway work was in Norwegian and English, and teaching was either teach in French and explain in English of teach in English and explain in French.
My problem I found was that when I first arrived in either Paris or Norway after an extended period in the other country my brain had trouble adjusting to the change. English was fine but, for the first few days after arriving Paris, if someone spoke to me in French my brain would say 'ah, foreign language' and would default to Norwegian and I would answer in that language. The same for the first few days back in Norway, I would automatically default to French.
The effect never wore off even after a decade. It seems my brain can handle English and one other language but goes into meltdown when a second new language is introduced.
High-level skills can quickly deteriorate when not used.
I once lived in Spain for six months, and on returning home through France realised I’d forgotten even basic French.
I’ve not flown a plane for a decade, there’s very good reasons that the next time I do, it will be several flights with an instructor before being allowed to go up solo.
Left and right handed cars though, no problem at all, even with manual gearboxes. Some skills eventually become so ingrained they get stored in the long term memory.
I have heard it said that one of the most perishable skills is landing a conventional aircraft on a carrier. That even after a few weeks off, refresher training is required.
Scuba diving needs constant refreshment
I do it sporadically (I wish I did it more) and almost every time I do, I need an hour or two of basic tuition, at first
Scuba diving is interesting in that, if everything is working, any fool can do it with no knowledge.
If something goes wrong, even quite expert people can die.
I remember the guys in the dive shop being startled that I wanted the spare regulator to be the same quality as the main. Apparently nearly everyone these days buys a cheap piece of shit for that.
Does anyone know what would happen if there was a vonc in the commons which was carried? It seems it no longer forces a GE, but I can't find what the actual resulting situation would be.
PM either calls a GE or resigns and someone with the confidence of the house is summoned to lead If he doesnt resign HMQ dismisses him.
There isn't always a parliament but there is always a government. IMHO in this situation despite a resignation of government following a VONC (which is NC in government not an individual) the PM and government carry on until there is another.
If it is obvious that another person of the governing party might command the confidence of the house they would be given time by HM to test it out; ditto if another leader could cobble a coalition.
The backstop is a GE. Though in most circumstances you would reach the backstop fast. During a GE whoever is the government when the music stops (moment of dissolution) is still the government until it isn't.
Not having a government at all is what Johnny Foreigner does.
During this the palace consults with the PM and with cab sec and HM is advised by them.
Does HM ever have to make a personal choice between possibilities? That is a secret. I think the answer must be that it could happen.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
I didn't say Roger is witless. I said his remark is. And it is. There is no way Britain is "losing 4% of GDP every year because Brexit". So, no it was not "ad hominem"
Besides: what do you expect me to do? Ignore an obviously false statement out of politeness? Say "Well done Rog on your great insight", even though it is clearly and foolishly wrong?
If I say something as daft as that - and it hardly unknown - please feel free to call my remark witless. I won't complain, I will thank you for pointing out my egregious error
And I'm sure if you asked Mr Meeks why he left PB, his answer won't be "because people chased me off"
An economist writes: Actually Roger is absolutely right and you have misunderstood what he has said. Since I don't engage in ad hominem remarks I won't call you witless. GDP is a flow concept. It measures the amount of output (or equivalently spending or income, the three are theoretically equivalent) produced in a given economy over a given period of time. The statement that Brexit has cost us x% of GDP per year (I won't comment on whether x is 4 or some other number as estimates differ, but FWIW 4 seems reasonable and is in the ballpark of the BOE and OBR estimates) means that the level of GDP is 4% below what it would have been if we hadn't Brexited, every year or every quarter. It doesn't imply lower GDP growth for ever, simply a permanently lower level of GDP vs this counterfactual. I hope this helps.
lol. So we Brexited six years ago and we've lost (on average?) 4% GDP a year and our economy is now about 20% smaller than it was in 2016? Crumbs!
Or is this from 2020 when we actually Brexited so we've lost 4% and counting, except that of course Covid intervened in 2020 and we lost about 10% of the economy due to that, then regained it, and how anyone can perceive actual Brexit effects in the middle of a global plague and now a war, fuck knows
And of course Roger said we are "losing 4% of GDP a year". Which means - in normal, sane English - 4% every year. If I say I earn about £30k a year, I mean every year. Otherwise I would specifiy "THIS year"
Apart from that, your comment is mere sophistry. I will refrain from calling it witless, in case I upset @Heathener
Again I think you are misunderstanding how GDP works. Saying GDP is 4% lower every year than it would have been otherwise does not involve the economy shrinking by 4% every year. Since GDP is a measure of national income, the simplest analogy is with personal income. Imagine you lose your job and your new job pays 4% less than your old job. Every year you are earning 4% less than you would have been if you stayed in your old job. This doesn't mean that your pay is going down by 4% every year.
That still entails a 4% hit. In theory you don't even need that.
Imagine you stay loyal to your own job that is giving 2% pay rises, rather than joining a competitor that is offering the same initial wage (the same starting point) but 2.5% annual pay rises. After just a few years, the discrepancy compound grows to a significant amount.
Again that's the theory, the evidence to say that has happened on the other hand is lacking to say the least.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The upcoming by-elections will predicate something, I think.
The objective evidence so far, is that they will be in the "worse possible results" category.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
Properly interesting. Thanks
Certainly accords with my experience. I started driving abroad early in life - in my 20s, and it took maybe a decade to get completely used to it - ie to a place where I would never forget which side of the road to drive on, whether it was left or right
Now it is instinctive, and - more pertinent to your point - I can switch between them seamlessly, like using one hand over the other if you are ambidextrous. They do feel like two distinct but similarly easy tasks
The same applies to driving automatic or with a gearbox, I reckon. At first it can be tricky to switch between, but eventually it becomes reflexive
I've always thought driving was about making as many things as subconscious as possible. I have been helping my daughter learn and you can see when you start out that actually thinking about gears, biting points, handbrakes, steering, traffic and speed all at once is completely overwhelming. As you learn more and more becomes subroutines so you can concentrate on the really important stuff like not hitting anyone.
When I have driven on the continent or the US I have found it perfectly ok but much, much more tiring than it is at home. This is simply because I can no longer trust my automatic instincts and can, if I am not careful, find myself on the wrong side of the road after turning at a junction, for example. So I actually have to pay attention and that increases the risk that I miss something important.
Yes this was exactly what I was referring to. When you have your wife next to you and your three children in the back seat the stress is that much higher. Of course I can do it, and it gets easier as each day you do it passes, but it certainly makes the holiday that bit less relaxing (thus negating the entire purpose of the holiday). But apparently this attitude is laughable (despite the person expressing this view saying that it took him a decade to become comfortable with it)...
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
Good post. Only bit I disagree with is the last para and I have to say normally I wouldn't disagree with you because as you say if you decide to do something then you need to take responsibility for that. However that wasn't the choice with Brexit. If you already had a holiday home (and to make it worse had pets) you were completely scuppered by it. You made the decision when none of these restrictions applied. Now the pets stuff could be made a lot easier, but as usual the UK Govt has made a pigs ear of it. I wouldn't mind an offline conversation with @IanB2 who I know travels with his dog. One of my friends sold his house to travel around Europe in a motorhome. Brexit caused him to have to come home and live on his son's driveway!
Re the first para I fully agree, but as you accept all people are different and have different hang ups which aren't rational, but we aren't rational beings and I reckon if the travel a lot you get less fazed. To give you an example I suffer from anxiety (like many) but only in a very specific and unusual form, mainly to do with taking on campaigns, which I do a lot of. I have none of the normal anxieties and for instance I can present to 100 people without any problem. I once attended a seminar of people with anxieties and the people all had to say what they suffered from. As it went around the group I was thinking 'I shouldn't be here, you are all a bunch of loonies', except when I spoke they all looked at me as if to say 'What the hell is wrong with you? Why take on these campaigns'
I guess in a nut shell most of us are a bit nutty. Those that aren't are a bit boring. You are definitely not boring
For those interested in Ukraine, here's the announcement on UK multiple-launch rockets. Ukrainian troops will be trained in the UK. We are definitely invested in this.
The problem I see with this very expensive kit is that the battle for the Donbas is being decided now. It is going to arrive too late. Also the provision of such expensive systems without adequate air defence will make them the highest priority targets for the Russian airforce.
It was obvious to a complete amateur like me over a month ago that the current battles were going to be won by Russian artillary unless something was done to counterbalance that. This is what has happened and I fear that Ukranian casualties in May and early June will have been horrendous. We really need to move faster, welcome though this is.
It looks to me that we're firmly in the Breakthrough Defeated quadrant - Russian military is unable to co-ordinate an integrated attack in time and space leading to piecemeal attacks unsupported by combat enablers. Any gains come at a high price in troops and material. Success is tactical at best; campaign ends in numerous operational setbacks and strategic defeat.
Yes Russia is winning right now. And has been for over a month. The Ukranians are showing incredible courage but their best trained troops are being chewed to pieces by intense artillary bombardments that leave the recipients wounded, concussed, deafened and disorientated. It's brutal and they very largely cannot fight back until the Russians try to take the cities.
Have the Russians achieved what they wanted to achieve in this time? Of course not. Have their casualties been beyond their worst nightmares? Certainly. Have they shown that the Russian bear was in fact sclerotic, sick, starved by corruption and poorly trained? Undoubtedly. But to pretend that they are not winning is delusional. The Ukranians themselves are saying as much. They need heavy artillary and they needed it a month ago. They are hanging on until it comes. I hope it is not too late.
So you're saying that Russia has failed to achieve what it wanted and has suffered far heavier casualties then they thought possible during the last month ?
That's not winning.
And then there's the time factor - how has the military balance changed during the last month ? Which side is training up the most men and receiving the most equipment ? And how has that changed during the last month and how will it change in upcoming months ?
Winning is beating your opponent and that is what they are doing now that they are playing to their strengths. I think that there is a good chance that the balance on this might change by the Autumn. I certainly hope so but it is going to take a lot more long range artillery than the UK and US have promised to date, on the ground, in use and not taken out by aircover.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The upcoming by-elections will predicate something, I think.
The objective evidence so far, is that they will be in the "worse possible results" category.
Tbf if the Tories get 33% in Wakefield it would be a miracle given they are defending the seat of an outgoing rapist nonce they foisted last minute without due diligence. If i were tory central command id take 33% all day long
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
Properly interesting. Thanks
Certainly accords with my experience. I started driving abroad early in life - in my 20s, and it took maybe a decade to get completely used to it - ie to a place where I would never forget which side of the road to drive on, whether it was left or right
Now it is instinctive, and - more pertinent to your point - I can switch between them seamlessly, like using one hand over the other if you are ambidextrous. They do feel like two distinct but similarly easy tasks
The same applies to driving automatic or with a gearbox, I reckon. At first it can be tricky to switch between, but eventually it becomes reflexive
I've always thought driving was about making as many things as subconscious as possible. I have been helping my daughter learn and you can see when you start out that actually thinking about gears, biting points, handbrakes, steering, traffic and speed all at once is completely overwhelming. As you learn more and more becomes subroutines so you can concentrate on the really important stuff like not hitting anyone.
When I have driven on the continent or the US I have found it perfectly ok but much, much more tiring than it is at home. This is simply because I can no longer trust my automatic instincts and can, if I am not careful, find myself on the wrong side of the road after turning at a junction, for example. So I actually have to pay attention and that increases the risk that I miss something important.
Sub-routines. The mot juste
Driving is now so automatic and sub-routinised for me I can almost watch TV as I do it (I don't, but I will do lots of other things)
Driving in America I find easier than anywhere else, because cities (certainly west of Chicago) are entirely designed around driving and making driving and parking nicer, right down to the "turn right on red lights" rule. Sadly this also makes most of these cities painfully ugly in places
But anyway yes this just reinforces the point. I've driven in America a lot so it is now reflexive and easy. It's all about doing the hours of practice, in almost any endeavour
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
Absolutely, the Tories u-turned and implemented the windfall tax and that was a tremendous political victory for Labour.
Its a terrible policy, but that didn't prevent the Tories from implementing it nor Labour claiming credit when they did.
If they did that more often, the Government would look even more rudderless and Labour would look like they have all the ideas and are the Government-in-waiting.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
1. Terrible idea, hence its implementation by the government. 2. Good idea in theory, but how are they going to pay for things? This would be better as a major reform like unifying NI and income tax. 3. This isn't as good as it sounds on the surface as lots of small businessses are already business rate exempt. 4. Meh. This isn't something the government should be doing. 5. Complete waste of time and money. And if this is talking about pandemic-related fraud, Labour are just as culpable as the Tories anyway. 6. I wouldn't say no, but it's not as important as: 7. This is absolutely essential - but is it compatible with increasing the UC level? 8. Surely happening next year anyway - it want up from £8.91 to £9.50 this year. 9. How does this improve on the current situation? I assume this is aimed at shutting down companies like Uber and Deliveroo which ordinary people love but the Left has always hated.
Maybe a 4/10 grade at the moment. Not unpromising but needs a hell of a lot more work.
I guess this is why it's not super easy to find because people like to criticize. Personally the list is sensible but insufficient.
Some more detail on energy policy:
1. Invest £6n a year on retrofitting houses 2. Reverse 7 year moratorium on onshore wind 3. Double offshore wind targets 4. Press on with all forms of renewable energy (that's not really a policy difference tbh) 5. End the delay on new nuclear plants -> must admit I didn't know Labour was particularly keen on nuclear...
The figure I remember was 6% over about 15 years? Which I think would mean about 0.3% lower growth per year.
It's worth bearing in mind that those forecasts from around the time of the referendum modelled neither the global covid pandemic or the war in Ukraine. Suffice to say that makes them almost completely useless. I genuinely do not understand the purpose of such long range forecasting, I'm not even sure it forms a useful exercise when it misses out such significant events as have occurred. Still I guess it gives economists something to do to pass the time.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
Properly interesting. Thanks
Certainly accords with my experience. I started driving abroad early in life - in my 20s, and it took maybe a decade to get completely used to it - ie to a place where I would never forget which side of the road to drive on, whether it was left or right
Now it is instinctive, and - more pertinent to your point - I can switch between them seamlessly, like using one hand over the other if you are ambidextrous. They do feel like two distinct but similarly easy tasks
The same applies to driving automatic or with a gearbox, I reckon. At first it can be tricky to switch between, but eventually it becomes reflexive
I've always thought driving was about making as many things as subconscious as possible. I have been helping my daughter learn and you can see when you start out that actually thinking about gears, biting points, handbrakes, steering, traffic and speed all at once is completely overwhelming. As you learn more and more becomes subroutines so you can concentrate on the really important stuff like not hitting anyone.
When I have driven on the continent or the US I have found it perfectly ok but much, much more tiring than it is at home. This is simply because I can no longer trust my automatic instincts and can, if I am not careful, find myself on the wrong side of the road after turning at a junction, for example. So I actually have to pay attention and that increases the risk that I miss something important.
Same with cycling - it's tricky at first because you have to concentrate so hard on the road surface, along with everything else.
I reckon I'm a better driver now though as a result, very aware of other cars, blind spots, whether people have seen me, pedestrians stepping out etc
Does anyone know what would happen if there was a vonc in the commons which was carried? It seems it no longer forces a GE, but I can't find what the actual resulting situation would be.
PM either calls a GE or resigns and someone with the confidence of the house is summoned to lead If he doesnt resign HMQ dismisses him.
There isn't always a parliament but there is always a government. IMHO in this situation despite a resignation of government following a VONC (which is NC in government not an individual) the PM and government carry on until there is another.
If it is obvious that another person of the governing party might command the confidence of the house they would be given time by HM to test it out; ditto if another leader could cobble a coalition.
The backstop is a GE. Though in most circumstances you would reach the backstop fast. During a GE whoever is the government when the music stops (moment of dissolution) is still the government until it isn't.
Not having a government at all is what Johnny Foreigner does.
During this the palace consults with the PM and with cab sec and HM is advised by them.
Does HM ever have to make a personal choice between possibilities? That is a secret. I think the answer must be that it could happen.
So, in theory Tory rebels could back or abstain on a vonc motion which the LDs seem to be planning then without precipitating a GE. I don't think its likely of course, but who knows what might happen in coming days.
For those interested in Ukraine, here's the announcement on UK multiple-launch rockets. Ukrainian troops will be trained in the UK. We are definitely invested in this.
The problem I see with this very expensive kit is that the battle for the Donbas is being decided now. It is going to arrive too late. Also the provision of such expensive systems without adequate air defence will make them the highest priority targets for the Russian airforce.
It was obvious to a complete amateur like me over a month ago that the current battles were going to be won by Russian artillary unless something was done to counterbalance that. This is what has happened and I fear that Ukranian casualties in May and early June will have been horrendous. We really need to move faster, welcome though this is.
It looks to me that we're firmly in the Breakthrough Defeated quadrant - Russian military is unable to co-ordinate an integrated attack in time and space leading to piecemeal attacks unsupported by combat enablers. Any gains come at a high price in troops and material. Success is tactical at best; campaign ends in numerous operational setbacks and strategic defeat.
Yes Russia is winning right now. And has been for over a month. The Ukranians are showing incredible courage but their best trained troops are being chewed to pieces by intense artillary bombardments that leave the recipients wounded, concussed, deafened and disorientated. It's brutal and they very largely cannot fight back until the Russians try to take the cities.
Have the Russians achieved what they wanted to achieve in this time? Of course not. Have their casualties been beyond their worst nightmares? Certainly. Have they shown that the Russian bear was in fact sclerotic, sick, starved by corruption and poorly trained? Undoubtedly. But to pretend that they are not winning is delusional. The Ukranians themselves are saying as much. They need heavy artillary and they needed it a month ago. They are hanging on until it comes. I hope it is not too late.
So you're saying that Russia has failed to achieve what it wanted and has suffered far heavier casualties then they thought possible during the last month ?
That's not winning.
And then there's the time factor - how has the military balance changed during the last month ? Which side is training up the most men and receiving the most equipment ? And how has that changed during the last month and how will it change in upcoming months ?
Winning is beating your opponent and that is what they are doing now that they are playing to their strengths. I think that there is a good chance that the balance on this might change by the Autumn. I certainly hope so but it is going to take a lot more long range artillery than the UK and US have promised to date, on the ground, in use and not taken out by aircover.
But you're not showing that Russia is beating Ukraine.
Certainly, at heavy cost, Russia has advanced a few miles in Luhansk but then Ukraine has advanced a few miles in Kharkiv and Kherson.
Do any of these tactical advances matter ? I doubt it.
How the strategic situation develops over the upcoming months is far more important.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
It was not @Leon who chased Alastair Meeks off this forum. He left because of a spat with another poster. I know because I was there when it happened, as were others.
You have made this accusation twice now against @Leon. It is unjustified and you really owe him an apology.
That is true, it was a pirate wot dun it.
Nonetheless Leon does have an uncanny ability to p*** other posters off. In my case I find his claimed expertise of autism unsubtly followed by the use of ASD as a derogatory narrative for former Prime Ministers particularly offensive. I suspect others could name their poison.
Does anyone know what would happen if there was a vonc in the commons which was carried? It seems it no longer forces a GE, but I can't find what the actual resulting situation would be.
PM either calls a GE or resigns and someone with the confidence of the house is summoned to lead If he doesnt resign HMQ dismisses him.
There isn't always a parliament but there is always a government. IMHO in this situation despite a resignation of government following a VONC (which is NC in government not an individual) the PM and government carry on until there is another.
If it is obvious that another person of the governing party might command the confidence of the house they would be given time by HM to test it out; ditto if another leader could cobble a coalition.
The backstop is a GE. Though in most circumstances you would reach the backstop fast. During a GE whoever is the government when the music stops (moment of dissolution) is still the government until it isn't.
Not having a government at all is what Johnny Foreigner does.
During this the palace consults with the PM and with cab sec and HM is advised by them.
Does HM ever have to make a personal choice between possibilities? That is a secret. I think the answer must be that it could happen.
Well yes, what i meant was the options are someone with the confidence and if nobody can then the PM must seek the mandate of the electorate in the absence of confidence from their current representatives. If the PM just ignores it all, HMQ must force a solution by either dismissal or dissolution on behalf of the representatives of her subjects.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
I didn't say Roger is witless. I said his remark is. And it is. There is no way Britain is "losing 4% of GDP every year because Brexit". So, no it was not "ad hominem"
Besides: what do you expect me to do? Ignore an obviously false statement out of politeness? Say "Well done Rog on your great insight", even though it is clearly and foolishly wrong?
If I say something as daft as that - and it hardly unknown - please feel free to call my remark witless. I won't complain, I will thank you for pointing out my egregious error
And I'm sure if you asked Mr Meeks why he left PB, his answer won't be "because people chased me off"
An economist writes: Actually Roger is absolutely right and you have misunderstood what he has said. Since I don't engage in ad hominem remarks I won't call you witless. GDP is a flow concept. It measures the amount of output (or equivalently spending or income, the three are theoretically equivalent) produced in a given economy over a given period of time. The statement that Brexit has cost us x% of GDP per year (I won't comment on whether x is 4 or some other number as estimates differ, but FWIW 4 seems reasonable and is in the ballpark of the BOE and OBR estimates) means that the level of GDP is 4% below what it would have been if we hadn't Brexited, every year or every quarter. It doesn't imply lower GDP growth for ever, simply a permanently lower level of GDP vs this counterfactual. I hope this helps.
lol. So we Brexited six years ago and we've lost (on average?) 4% GDP a year and our economy is now about 20% smaller than it was in 2016? Crumbs!
Or is this from 2020 when we actually Brexited so we've lost 4% and counting, except that of course Covid intervened in 2020 and we lost about 10% of the economy due to that, then regained it, and how anyone can perceive actual Brexit effects in the middle of a global plague and now a war, fuck knows
And of course Roger said we are "losing 4% of GDP a year". Which means - in normal, sane English - 4% every year. If I say I earn about £30k a year, I mean every year. Otherwise I would specifiy "THIS year"
Apart from that, your comment is mere sophistry. I will refrain from calling it witless, in case I upset @Heathener
Again I think you are misunderstanding how GDP works. Saying GDP is 4% lower every year than it would have been otherwise does not involve the economy shrinking by 4% every year. Since GDP is a measure of national income, the simplest analogy is with personal income. Imagine you lose your job and your new job pays 4% less than your old job. Every year you are earning 4% less than you would have been if you stayed in your old job. This doesn't mean that your pay is going down by 4% every year.
That still entails a 4% hit. In theory you don't even need that.
Imagine you stay loyal to your own job that is giving 2% pay rises, rather than joining a competitor that is offering the same initial wage (the same starting point) but 2.5% annual pay rises. After just a few years, the discrepancy compound grows to a significant amount.
Again that's the theory, the evidence to say that has happened on the other hand is lacking to say the least.
There was some better news economically for the government today. PMIs slightly better than expected.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
Yep - I do. I understand that while the UK needs the EU more than they need us, EU member states would still like better access to the UK market than they get currently and that, generally, the EU is made stronger by having a smooth, trust-based relationship with the UK.
You do this stuff for a living, and you’re not prone to lying fantasies, so I am happy to take it on trust. I sincerely hope you are right
If Starmer can fix some of this shit it would be great. I have long thought it would be a Remainer that might make Brexit work, as so many Brexiteers are ideologically wedded to a Platonic ideal of Brexit, and the more pragmatic Leavers - eg Hannan - have generally left the scene
And we agree that none of this can happen until Boris goes. He REALLY needs to go.
A rare moment of concord on PB
But you are wrong about remoaner ultras. They exist in numbers. @Scott_xP is far from alone in his dogmatism
I do not come across them except on here and on Twitter. I agree with them that leaving the EU was a mistake, but we have to move on from that. If they can't do it, they are going to be permanently disappointed. It is no way to lead a life.
You don't read the Guardian, then. The Labour Party's very own newspaper
From Polly Toynbee to Nick Cohen to Martin Kettle to dozens of others, they are all Rejoiners, they are merely staying reasonably quiet for now, so as not to scare the horses.
That will change as Starmer gets nearer to power. I expect the first Guardian editorial or lead columnist to suggest rejoining the SM within the year
We will rejoin at some point unless the EU blows up. Staying out will make us poorer, and people don't like being poor. And anti-EU sentiment is far stronger in the generation that will die in the next 20 years than among those who will still be alive and voting. Aligning ourselves with the SM is an intelligent first step in that process. Of course we will have people advocating that - a Tory MP no less already has. None of this will happen quickly though. Perhaps you will have exited to the great free holiday in the sky by the time it happens. Perhaps I will have, too.
Nah. The EU is heading in a direction we can never accept and the longer we are out the more those differences will become apparent.
What I do think will happen at some point is we will join EFTA and probably the EEA. But I would say that as it has always been the best result in my view.
The EU is not heading very clearly in any direction at all. It is as likely to blow up as to become a coherent single federal state in my opinion, and more likely to continue to muddle along as a collection of sovereign states who make some decisions collectively. It will probably see an increasing division between an inner, more integrated, core and the rest. The UK could easily find a berth in that outer ring in ten or twenty years - a wasteful and damaging journey back to where we would have been anyway.
Why bother and suffer all the inevitable pain of the political and social problems associated with the EU when the trading partner route lies with EFTA and the EEA. If we will end up anywhere closer to the EU it is there. As long as EFTA exists it will always be viewed as preferable to full EU membership.
I am not bothered either way TBH but being a rule taker not a rule maker isn't without frustrations of its own (especially as the UK was pretty influential in writing the rules when it was an EU member).
Wrong in both instances. The 'rule taker' idea is simply a myth that was propagated by EU supporters who were worried that EFTA membership was seen as a viable alternative.
And given that so much of the decision making inside the EU is now by QMV the idea that we were influential in that is also a very dubious assertion.
Not really true Richard. QMV was inevitable after the expansion east which was largely driven by the UK in the face of French scepticism. Additionally the adoption of what were once seen as Anglo-Saxon attitudes on deregulation of state industries in Europe would not have happened without British membership. The Europeans were hugely influenced by Thatcherite economics even though they, and the Brexiteers would never want to admit it.
QMV was not inevitable, just needed for the EU to be able to make decisions easier, but that easier level of decision making means able to make more decisions without us.
Harder, but unanimous decision making could have remained an option which would entail the EU doing less but concentrating on doing what it does do right. That was an option, and it was what I and many other erstwhile pro-Europeans wanted it to be doing, provide only the higher level lower-common denominator framework but leave the day to day decisions to the elected governments of nation states.
Lisbon rejected the latter option, and Cameron's failed reforms failed to bring it back. That is why many of us former pro-Europeans switched in the end to Leave.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
Good post. Only bit I disagree with is the last para and I have to say normally I wouldn't disagree with you because as you say if you decide to do something then you need to take responsibility for that. However that wasn't the choice with Brexit. If you already had a holiday home (and to make it worse had pets) you were completely scuppered by it. You made the decision when none of these restrictions applied. Now the pets stuff could be made a lot easier, but as usual the UK Govt has made a pigs ear of it. I wouldn't mind an offline conversation with @IanB2 who I know travels with his dog. One of my friends sold his house to travel around Europe in a motorhome. Brexit caused him to have to come home and live on his son's driveway!
Re the first para I fully agree, but as you accept all people are different and have different hang ups which aren't rational, but we aren't rational beings and I reckon if the travel a lot you get less fazed. To give you an example I suffer from anxiety (like many) but only in a very specific and unusual form, mainly to do with taking on campaigns, which I do a lot of. I have none of the normal anxieties and for instance I can present to 100 people without any problem. I once attended a seminar of people with anxieties and the people all had to say what they suffered from. As it went around the group I was thinking 'I shouldn't be here, you are all a bunch of loonies', except when I spoke they all looked at me as if to say 'What the hell is wrong with you? Why take on these campaigns'
I guess in a nut shell most of us are a bit nutty. Those that aren't are a bit boring. You are definitely not boring
The biggest challenge with extended travel in Europe is the 90/180 visa rules for humans. The dog thing is surmountable - the new paperwork is an immense hassle, but it's a question of money and preparation, and doesn't actually stop you travelling (the new certificate lasts four months, but if it expires you just pay for a new one). And many Brits are doing what I have managed to do, and secure a new pet passport from a friendly vet in an EU country - which should make it cheaper and easier for us to travel in future. But there's a tussle going on with the UK government - which wants to be inside the scheme without accepting that the EU sets the rules - and meanwhile the EU Commission is trying very hard to stop British holidaymakers getting hold of EU PPs. On the relevant Facebook and other forums there are acres of posts discussing it all.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
1. Terrible idea, hence its implementation by the government. 2. Good idea in theory, but how are they going to pay for things? This would be better as a major reform like unifying NI and income tax. 3. This isn't as good as it sounds on the surface as lots of small businessses are already business rate exempt. 4. Meh. This isn't something the government should be doing. 5. Complete waste of time and money. And if this is talking about pandemic-related fraud, Labour are just as culpable as the Tories anyway. 6. I wouldn't say no, but it's not as important as: 7. This is absolutely essential - but is it compatible with increasing the UC level? 8. Surely happening next year anyway - it want up from £8.91 to £9.50 this year. 9. How does this improve on the current situation? I assume this is aimed at shutting down companies like Uber and Deliveroo which ordinary people love but the Left has always hated.
Maybe a 4/10 grade at the moment. Not unpromising but needs a hell of a lot more work.
I guess this is why it's not super easy to find because people like to criticize. Personally the list is sensible but insufficient.
Some more detail on energy policy:
1. Invest £6n a year on retrofitting houses 2. Reverse 7 year moratorium on onshore wind 3. Double offshore wind targets 4. Press on with all forms of renewable energy (that's not really a policy difference tbh) 5. End the delay on new nuclear plants -> must admit I didn't know Labour was particularly keen on nuclear...
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
Yep - I do. I understand that while the UK needs the EU more than they need us, EU member states would still like better access to the UK market than they get currently and that, generally, the EU is made stronger by having a smooth, trust-based relationship with the UK.
You do this stuff for a living, and you’re not prone to lying fantasies, so I am happy to take it on trust. I sincerely hope you are right
If Starmer can fix some of this shit it would be great. I have long thought it would be a Remainer that might make Brexit work, as so many Brexiteers are ideologically wedded to a Platonic ideal of Brexit, and the more pragmatic Leavers - eg Hannan - have generally left the scene
And we agree that none of this can happen until Boris goes. He REALLY needs to go.
A rare moment of concord on PB
But you are wrong about remoaner ultras. They exist in numbers. @Scott_xP is far from alone in his dogmatism
I do not come across them except on here and on Twitter. I agree with them that leaving the EU was a mistake, but we have to move on from that. If they can't do it, they are going to be permanently disappointed. It is no way to lead a life.
You don't read the Guardian, then. The Labour Party's very own newspaper
From Polly Toynbee to Nick Cohen to Martin Kettle to dozens of others, they are all Rejoiners, they are merely staying reasonably quiet for now, so as not to scare the horses.
That will change as Starmer gets nearer to power. I expect the first Guardian editorial or lead columnist to suggest rejoining the SM within the year
We will rejoin at some point unless the EU blows up. Staying out will make us poorer, and people don't like being poor. And anti-EU sentiment is far stronger in the generation that will die in the next 20 years than among those who will still be alive and voting. Aligning ourselves with the SM is an intelligent first step in that process. Of course we will have people advocating that - a Tory MP no less already has. None of this will happen quickly though. Perhaps you will have exited to the great free holiday in the sky by the time it happens. Perhaps I will have, too.
Nah. The EU is heading in a direction we can never accept and the longer we are out the more those differences will become apparent.
What I do think will happen at some point is we will join EFTA and probably the EEA. But I would say that as it has always been the best result in my view.
The EU is not heading very clearly in any direction at all. It is as likely to blow up as to become a coherent single federal state in my opinion, and more likely to continue to muddle along as a collection of sovereign states who make some decisions collectively. It will probably see an increasing division between an inner, more integrated, core and the rest. The UK could easily find a berth in that outer ring in ten or twenty years - a wasteful and damaging journey back to where we would have been anyway.
Why bother and suffer all the inevitable pain of the political and social problems associated with the EU when the trading partner route lies with EFTA and the EEA. If we will end up anywhere closer to the EU it is there. As long as EFTA exists it will always be viewed as preferable to full EU membership.
I suspect it is as close as one can get to a compromise that would please most people. It would be hated by the serious headbangers and diehards on both sides which also commends it.
As a former headbanger on the Remain side, I would live with that now. I see no way back for full membership, certainly on the terms we left. That ship has sailed.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
I found something similar to this with languages. For about a decade I used to work for a French company in Norway on a rotation and then, on occasion, teach at the headquarters of the company in Paris. Norway work was in Norwegian and English, and teaching was either teach in French and explain in English of teach in English and explain in French.
My problem I found was that when I first arrived in either Paris or Norway after an extended period in the other country my brain had trouble adjusting to the change. English was fine but, for the first few days after arriving Paris, if someone spoke to me in French my brain would say 'ah, foreign language' and would default to Norwegian and I would answer in that language. The same for the first few days back in Norway, I would automatically default to French.
The effect never wore off even after a decade. It seems my brain can handle English and one other language but goes into meltdown when a second new language is introduced.
High-level skills can quickly deteriorate when not used.
I once lived in Spain for six months, and on returning home through France realised I’d forgotten even basic French.
I’ve not flown a plane for a decade, there’s very good reasons that the next time I do, it will be several flights with an instructor before being allowed to go up solo.
Left and right handed cars though, no problem at all, even with manual gearboxes. Some skills eventually become so ingrained they get stored in the long term memory.
I have heard it said that one of the most perishable skills is landing a conventional aircraft on a carrier. That even after a few weeks off, refresher training is required.
Maybe @Dura_Ace can comment on that one, but yes, something so complex would require constant practice to remain good at it.
Back in the days of the Space Shuttle, the pilots would be flying in the training aircraft, and the mission specialists would be in the spacewalk tank, for weeks on end, and up until the last possible moment before launch.
Does anyone know what would happen if there was a vonc in the commons which was carried? It seems it no longer forces a GE, but I can't find what the actual resulting situation would be.
PM either calls a GE or resigns and someone with the confidence of the house is summoned to lead If he doesnt resign HMQ dismisses him.
There isn't always a parliament but there is always a government. IMHO in this situation despite a resignation of government following a VONC (which is NC in government not an individual) the PM and government carry on until there is another.
If it is obvious that another person of the governing party might command the confidence of the house they would be given time by HM to test it out; ditto if another leader could cobble a coalition.
The backstop is a GE. Though in most circumstances you would reach the backstop fast. During a GE whoever is the government when the music stops (moment of dissolution) is still the government until it isn't.
Not having a government at all is what Johnny Foreigner does.
During this the palace consults with the PM and with cab sec and HM is advised by them.
Does HM ever have to make a personal choice between possibilities? That is a secret. I think the answer must be that it could happen.
So, in theory Tory rebels could back or abstain on a vonc motion which the LDs seem to be planning then without precipitating a GE. I don't think its likely of course, but who knows what might happen in coming days.
Don't know any precedent for it. Mr Speaker's call? I don't think it will be permitted.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
I agree. I think the reason they don't is because (a) they don't really have many and (b) are worried that they will fall apart under any sort of sustained scrutiny. So they want to keep them under wraps until the last possible moment.
I find that dishonest in its own way. I would have much more confidence in a Labour government if it showed evidence of really thinking through its programme for government and had the confidence to put it before us so that we can really see and scrutinise for ourselves what they propose. Not spring it on us 3 weeks before the GE.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
I didn't say Roger is witless. I said his remark is. And it is. There is no way Britain is "losing 4% of GDP every year because Brexit". So, no it was not "ad hominem"
Besides: what do you expect me to do? Ignore an obviously false statement out of politeness? Say "Well done Rog on your great insight", even though it is clearly and foolishly wrong?
If I say something as daft as that - and it hardly unknown - please feel free to call my remark witless. I won't complain, I will thank you for pointing out my egregious error
And I'm sure if you asked Mr Meeks why he left PB, his answer won't be "because people chased me off"
An economist writes: Actually Roger is absolutely right and you have misunderstood what he has said. Since I don't engage in ad hominem remarks I won't call you witless. GDP is a flow concept. It measures the amount of output (or equivalently spending or income, the three are theoretically equivalent) produced in a given economy over a given period of time. The statement that Brexit has cost us x% of GDP per year (I won't comment on whether x is 4 or some other number as estimates differ, but FWIW 4 seems reasonable and is in the ballpark of the BOE and OBR estimates) means that the level of GDP is 4% below what it would have been if we hadn't Brexited, every year or every quarter. It doesn't imply lower GDP growth for ever, simply a permanently lower level of GDP vs this counterfactual. I hope this helps.
lol. So we Brexited six years ago and we've lost (on average?) 4% GDP a year and our economy is now about 20% smaller than it was in 2016? Crumbs!
Or is this from 2020 when we actually Brexited so we've lost 4% and counting, except that of course Covid intervened in 2020 and we lost about 10% of the economy due to that, then regained it, and how anyone can perceive actual Brexit effects in the middle of a global plague and now a war, fuck knows
And of course Roger said we are "losing 4% of GDP a year". Which means - in normal, sane English - 4% every year. If I say I earn about £30k a year, I mean every year. Otherwise I would specifiy "THIS year"
Apart from that, your comment is mere sophistry. I will refrain from calling it witless, in case I upset @Heathener
Again I think you are misunderstanding how GDP works. Saying GDP is 4% lower every year than it would have been otherwise does not involve the economy shrinking by 4% every year. Since GDP is a measure of national income, the simplest analogy is with personal income. Imagine you lose your job and your new job pays 4% less than your old job. Every year you are earning 4% less than you would have been if you stayed in your old job. This doesn't mean that your pay is going down by 4% every year.
This is my last comment on this, as I have dildos to attend to, and chisels lying idle
Let's go back to Roger's original remark
"Brexit is costing us 4% GDP a year"
A year, in ordinary English, means "every year", as I have said. "I earn £20k a year." "I drink thirty gallons of wine a year". "I go abroad 200 times a year". It clearly means EVERY year, not THIS year, let alone THIS YEAR BUT NEVER AGAIN
There are, in that light, only two common sense interpretations of Roger's comment. The first is: Brexit is costing us 4% of Britain's total economic output, our GDP, which has shrunk 4% every year since Brexit, and will likely continue to do so. But that is nonsense, as we all know
The other more charitable interpretation is that by Brexiting we are losing 4% potential growth, an opportunity cost, every year - and that without Brexit GDP growth would be, say, annually 7% rather than its present ~3%. But again, that's bollocks, for multiple reasons (and how would we even know in the context of Covid and war?)
I conclude that Roger's remark was witless. But I am sure he is a lovely guy, and he is very good on movies, and tells some cracking anecdotes, when he is in the mood, so peace to all
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
It was not @Leon who chased Alastair Meeks off this forum. He left because of a spat with another poster. I know because I was there when it happened, as were others.
You have made this accusation twice now against @Leon. It is unjustified and you really owe him an apology.
That is true, it was a pirate wot dun it.
Nonetheless Leon does have an uncanny ability to p*** other posters off. In my case I find his claimed expertise of autism unsubtly followed by the use of ASD as a derogatory narrative for former Prime Ministers particularly offensive. I suspect others could name their poison.
My gripe is I was on PB many months before realising not really knapping sex toys, so the joke was on me. 😕
I was excited at thought of a solid dildo or double dildo that could also be a fantastic saucy ornament for the bedroom 🤦♀️
The figure I remember was 6% over about 15 years? Which I think would mean about 0.3% lower growth per year.
It's worth bearing in mind that those forecasts from around the time of the referendum modelled neither the global covid pandemic or the war in Ukraine. Suffice to say that makes them almost completely useless. I genuinely do not understand the purpose of such long range forecasting, I'm not even sure it forms a useful exercise when it misses out such significant events as have occurred. Still I guess it gives economists something to do to pass the time.
Well I think the 6% figure was really just an extrapolation of what the annual hit was likely to be. Thinking about it, perhaps the prediction was 0.4% lower growth per year than it would otherwise be. In other words the economy would continue to grow but more slowly. Perhaps Rog' was just missing the decimal point.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The upcoming by-elections will predicate something, I think.
The objective evidence so far, is that they will be in the "worse possible results" category.
Tbf if the Tories get 33% in Wakefield it would be a miracle given they are defending the seat of an outgoing rapist nonce they foisted last minute without due diligence. If i were tory central command id take 33% all day long
Minor point, but it’s not fair to describe the guy as a rapist. At least based on the case that he was prosecuted for.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The way in which Thatcher was actually ousted, was by most or all of the cabinet telling her that she no longer had their support. The second round leadership vote in 1990 was the way the Conservative MPs publicly told the cabinet that her days were numbered. This is pretty much the same situation that Mr Johnson is in now (albeit the a different voting procedure), and if half of the cabinet decide that he is too much of a liability for the next election, they can easily engineer his "resignation".
Does anyone know what would happen if there was a vonc in the commons which was carried? It seems it no longer forces a GE, but I can't find what the actual resulting situation would be.
PM either calls a GE or resigns and someone with the confidence of the house is summoned to lead If he doesnt resign HMQ dismisses him.
There isn't always a parliament but there is always a government. IMHO in this situation despite a resignation of government following a VONC (which is NC in government not an individual) the PM and government carry on until there is another.
If it is obvious that another person of the governing party might command the confidence of the house they would be given time by HM to test it out; ditto if another leader could cobble a coalition.
The backstop is a GE. Though in most circumstances you would reach the backstop fast. During a GE whoever is the government when the music stops (moment of dissolution) is still the government until it isn't.
Not having a government at all is what Johnny Foreigner does.
During this the palace consults with the PM and with cab sec and HM is advised by them.
Does HM ever have to make a personal choice between possibilities? That is a secret. I think the answer must be that it could happen.
So, in theory Tory rebels could back or abstain on a vonc motion which the LDs seem to be planning then without precipitating a GE. I don't think its likely of course, but who knows what might happen in coming days.
IIRC, only the LOTO can call a VONC - ISTR the SNP tried it (under May, perhaps?) and were turned down.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
If it’s f*king Brexit, why are they being cancelled all over the world?
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
Good post. Only bit I disagree with is the last para and I have to say normally I wouldn't disagree with you because as you say if you decide to do something then you need to take responsibility for that. However that wasn't the choice with Brexit. If you already had a holiday home (and to make it worse had pets) you were completely scuppered by it. You made the decision when none of these restrictions applied. Now the pets stuff could be made a lot easier, but as usual the UK Govt has made a pigs ear of it. I wouldn't mind an offline conversation with @IanB2 who I know travels with his dog. One of my friends sold his house to travel around Europe in a motorhome. Brexit caused him to have to come home and live on his son's driveway!
Re the first para I fully agree, but as you accept all people are different and have different hang ups which aren't rational, but we aren't rational beings and I reckon if the travel a lot you get less fazed. To give you an example I suffer from anxiety (like many) but only in a very specific and unusual form, mainly to do with taking on campaigns, which I do a lot of. I have none of the normal anxieties and for instance I can present to 100 people without any problem. I once attended a seminar of people with anxieties and the people all had to say what they suffered from. As it went around the group I was thinking 'I shouldn't be here, you are all a bunch of loonies', except when I spoke they all looked at me as if to say 'What the hell is wrong with you? Why take on these campaigns'
I guess in a nut shell most of us are a bit nutty. Those that aren't are a bit boring. You are definitely not boring
The biggest challenge with extended travel in Europe is the 90/180 visa rules for humans. The dog thing is surmountable - the new paperwork is an immense hassle, but it's a question of money and preparation, and doesn't actually stop you travelling (the new certificate lasts four months, but if it expires you just pay for a new one). And many Brits are doing what I have managed to do, and secure a new pet passport from a friendly vet in an EU country - which should make it cheaper and easier for us to travel in future. But there's a tussle going on with the UK government - which wants to be inside the scheme without accepting that the EU sets the rules - and meanwhile the EU Commission is trying very hard to stop British holidaymakers getting hold of EU PPs. On the relevant Facebook and other forums there are acres of posts discussing it all.
Thanks @IanB2 The problem we have found is you need to get the health certificate within 10 days of travel, but we can't get a vet to do one for about 2 months which means travel needs long term planning and no just popping over the channel for a weekend. Interested in being able to get an EU passport if possible. What do you also do re worming certificate prior to returning. Is that simple and how much?
And of course the other annoying thing is it costs more to take your bloody dog to France than it costs to take yourself.
Does anyone know what would happen if there was a vonc in the commons which was carried? It seems it no longer forces a GE, but I can't find what the actual resulting situation would be.
PM either calls a GE or resigns and someone with the confidence of the house is summoned to lead If he doesnt resign HMQ dismisses him.
There isn't always a parliament but there is always a government. IMHO in this situation despite a resignation of government following a VONC (which is NC in government not an individual) the PM and government carry on until there is another.
If it is obvious that another person of the governing party might command the confidence of the house they would be given time by HM to test it out; ditto if another leader could cobble a coalition.
The backstop is a GE. Though in most circumstances you would reach the backstop fast. During a GE whoever is the government when the music stops (moment of dissolution) is still the government until it isn't.
Not having a government at all is what Johnny Foreigner does.
During this the palace consults with the PM and with cab sec and HM is advised by them.
Does HM ever have to make a personal choice between possibilities? That is a secret. I think the answer must be that it could happen.
So, in theory Tory rebels could back or abstain on a vonc motion which the LDs seem to be planning then without precipitating a GE. I don't think its likely of course, but who knows what might happen in coming days.
Don't know any precedent for it. Mr Speaker's call? I don't think it will be permitted.
Just seems there might be something there. The detail @wooliedyed and @bondegezou below seems to suggest that there's a possibility.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
I didn't say Roger is witless. I said his remark is. And it is. There is no way Britain is "losing 4% of GDP every year because Brexit". So, no it was not "ad hominem"
Besides: what do you expect me to do? Ignore an obviously false statement out of politeness? Say "Well done Rog on your great insight", even though it is clearly and foolishly wrong?
If I say something as daft as that - and it hardly unknown - please feel free to call my remark witless. I won't complain, I will thank you for pointing out my egregious error
And I'm sure if you asked Mr Meeks why he left PB, his answer won't be "because people chased me off"
An economist writes: Actually Roger is absolutely right and you have misunderstood what he has said. Since I don't engage in ad hominem remarks I won't call you witless. GDP is a flow concept. It measures the amount of output (or equivalently spending or income, the three are theoretically equivalent) produced in a given economy over a given period of time. The statement that Brexit has cost us x% of GDP per year (I won't comment on whether x is 4 or some other number as estimates differ, but FWIW 4 seems reasonable and is in the ballpark of the BOE and OBR estimates) means that the level of GDP is 4% below what it would have been if we hadn't Brexited, every year or every quarter. It doesn't imply lower GDP growth for ever, simply a permanently lower level of GDP vs this counterfactual. I hope this helps.
lol. So we Brexited six years ago and we've lost (on average?) 4% GDP a year and our economy is now about 20% smaller than it was in 2016? Crumbs!
Or is this from 2020 when we actually Brexited so we've lost 4% and counting, except that of course Covid intervened in 2020 and we lost about 10% of the economy due to that, then regained it, and how anyone can perceive actual Brexit effects in the middle of a global plague and now a war, fuck knows
And of course Roger said we are "losing 4% of GDP a year". Which means - in normal, sane English - 4% every year. If I say I earn about £30k a year, I mean every year. Otherwise I would specifiy "THIS year"
Apart from that, your comment is mere sophistry. I will refrain from calling it witless, in case I upset @Heathener
Again I think you are misunderstanding how GDP works. Saying GDP is 4% lower every year than it would have been otherwise does not involve the economy shrinking by 4% every year. Since GDP is a measure of national income, the simplest analogy is with personal income. Imagine you lose your job and your new job pays 4% less than your old job. Every year you are earning 4% less than you would have been if you stayed in your old job. This doesn't mean that your pay is going down by 4% every year.
This is my last comment on this, as I have dildos to attend to, and chisels lying idle
Let's go back to Roger's original remark
"Brexit is costing us 4% GDP a year"
A year, in ordinary English, means "every year", as I have said. "I earn £20k a year." "I drink thirty gallons of wine a year". "I go abroad 200 times a year". It clearly means EVERY year, not THIS year, let alone THIS YEAR BUT NEVER AGAIN
There are, in that light, only two common sense interpretations of Roger's comment. The first is: Brexit is costing us 4% of Britain's total economic output, our GDP, which has shrunk 4% every year since Brexit, and will likely continue to do so. But that is nonsense, as we all know
The other more charitable interpretation is that by Brexiting we are losing 4% potential growth, an opportunity cost, every year - and that without Brexit GDP growth would be, say, annually 7% rather than its present ~3%. But again, that's bollocks, for multiple reasons (and how would we even know in the context of Covid and war?)
I conclude that Roger's remark was witless. But I am sure he is a lovely guy, and he is very good on movies, and tells some cracking anecdotes, when he is in the mood, so peace to all
Good day
I don't think you understand this stuff at all. Roger was referring to the level of GDP not the growth rate. Whether you agree that the number is 4% or not is a different question, but he expressed it completely clearly and accurately. Go back and read my explanations of this, and if that doesn't work go and read up on GDP somewhere else. And stop calling people witless when you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
I found something similar to this with languages. For about a decade I used to work for a French company in Norway on a rotation and then, on occasion, teach at the headquarters of the company in Paris. Norway work was in Norwegian and English, and teaching was either teach in French and explain in English of teach in English and explain in French.
My problem I found was that when I first arrived in either Paris or Norway after an extended period in the other country my brain had trouble adjusting to the change. English was fine but, for the first few days after arriving Paris, if someone spoke to me in French my brain would say 'ah, foreign language' and would default to Norwegian and I would answer in that language. The same for the first few days back in Norway, I would automatically default to French.
The effect never wore off even after a decade. It seems my brain can handle English and one other language but goes into meltdown when a second new language is introduced.
High-level skills can quickly deteriorate when not used.
I once lived in Spain for six months, and on returning home through France realised I’d forgotten even basic French.
I’ve not flown a plane for a decade, there’s very good reasons that the next time I do, it will be several flights with an instructor before being allowed to go up solo.
Left and right handed cars though, no problem at all, even with manual gearboxes. Some skills eventually become so ingrained they get stored in the long term memory.
I have heard it said that one of the most perishable skills is landing a conventional aircraft on a carrier. That even after a few weeks off, refresher training is required.
Maybe @Dura_Ace can comment on that one, but yes, something so complex would require constant practice to remain good at it.
Back in the days of the Space Shuttle, the pilots would be flying in the training aircraft, and the mission specialists would be in the spacewalk tank, for weeks on end, and up until the last possible moment before launch.
A chap I knew actually wrote a shuttle landing simulator for the space shuttle - it was designed for a laptop format Sparc station (IIRC) that would be velcro'd in position on the actual space shuttle in orbit. The pilots could then practise landings. The idea was that they could practise landings on longer missions.
According to him, they programmed it with the various aerodynamic coefficients etc for the actual Shuttle. It was an early example of a flight simulator based on actual physics.
No one in the team could land it - crashed every time.
A bit worried, after some checking of their work, they asked someone from the astronaut office to come and try it.
The astronaut did a bunch of landings, apparently quite easily. He thanked them for the quality of the work....
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
It was not @Leon who chased Alastair Meeks off this forum. He left because of a spat with another poster. I know because I was there when it happened, as were others.
You have made this accusation twice now against @Leon. It is unjustified and you really owe him an apology.
That is true, it was a pirate wot dun it.
Nonetheless Leon does have an uncanny ability to p*** other posters off. In my case I find his claimed expertise of autism unsubtly followed by the use of ASD as a derogatory narrative for former Prime Ministers particularly offensive. I suspect others could name their poison.
My gripe is I was on PB many months before realising not really knapping sex toys, so the joke was on me. 😕
I was excited at thought of a solid dildo or double dildo that could also be a fantastic saucy ornament for the bedroom 🤦♀️
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
I agree. I think the reason they don't is because (a) they don't really have many and (b) are worried that they will fall apart under any sort of sustained scrutiny. So they want to keep them under wraps until the last possible moment.
I find that dishonest in its own way. I would have much more confidence in a Labour government if it showed evidence of really thinking through its programme for government and had the confidence to put it before us so that we can really see and scrutinise for ourselves what they propose. Not spring it on us 3 weeks before the GE.
There is very little difference currently between tory and labour policies as this Government has implemented pretty left wing policies
Tax rates are the highest they have ever been so Labour can't really talk about increasing rates.
The minimum wage has increased significantly with most places now paying £10 plus per hour for unskilled work so not really scope to say they would increase that.
Government spending is off the charts at the moment so they can't really say they will increase that.
Universal Credit is pretty generous so I doubt they would commit to increasing it as it will be a disincentive to work.
Thats why Labour are pretty quiet on any different polcies as their normal policies of the last 30 years are currently being implemented.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The way in which Thatcher was actually ousted, was by most or all of the cabinet telling her that she no longer had their support. The second round leadership vote in 1990 was the way the Conservative MPs publicly told the cabinet that her days were numbered. This is pretty much the same situation that Mr Johnson is in now (albeit the a different voting procedure), and if half of the cabinet decide that he is too much of a liability for the next election, they can easily engineer his "resignation".
Except when it comes to personal issues Bozo completely ignores the advice and carries on his own merry way..
Maybe @Dura_Ace can comment on that one, but yes, something so complex would require constant practice to remain good at it.
The Harrier was "easy" to land on the ship but we still practiced it as much as aircraft and dummy deck availability allowed. (We had no training carrier)
The F-14 was extremely difficult and we had to re-qualify before EVERY cruise. So that was 2 x touch and go, 6 x day landing and 4 x night landing in 24 hours. Bad weather? Rough seas? Been saddled with an F-14A that has the throttle response of a Briggs & Stratton lawnmower.Tough shit, do it anyway. Can't do it? Tough shit, enjoy your C-130 career.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
I didn't say Roger is witless. I said his remark is. And it is. There is no way Britain is "losing 4% of GDP every year because Brexit". So, no it was not "ad hominem"
Besides: what do you expect me to do? Ignore an obviously false statement out of politeness? Say "Well done Rog on your great insight", even though it is clearly and foolishly wrong?
If I say something as daft as that - and it hardly unknown - please feel free to call my remark witless. I won't complain, I will thank you for pointing out my egregious error
And I'm sure if you asked Mr Meeks why he left PB, his answer won't be "because people chased me off"
An economist writes: Actually Roger is absolutely right and you have misunderstood what he has said. Since I don't engage in ad hominem remarks I won't call you witless. GDP is a flow concept. It measures the amount of output (or equivalently spending or income, the three are theoretically equivalent) produced in a given economy over a given period of time. The statement that Brexit has cost us x% of GDP per year (I won't comment on whether x is 4 or some other number as estimates differ, but FWIW 4 seems reasonable and is in the ballpark of the BOE and OBR estimates) means that the level of GDP is 4% below what it would have been if we hadn't Brexited, every year or every quarter. It doesn't imply lower GDP growth for ever, simply a permanently lower level of GDP vs this counterfactual. I hope this helps.
lol. So we Brexited six years ago and we've lost (on average?) 4% GDP a year and our economy is now about 20% smaller than it was in 2016? Crumbs!
Or is this from 2020 when we actually Brexited so we've lost 4% and counting, except that of course Covid intervened in 2020 and we lost about 10% of the economy due to that, then regained it, and how anyone can perceive actual Brexit effects in the middle of a global plague and now a war, fuck knows
And of course Roger said we are "losing 4% of GDP a year". Which means - in normal, sane English - 4% every year. If I say I earn about £30k a year, I mean every year. Otherwise I would specifiy "THIS year"
Apart from that, your comment is mere sophistry. I will refrain from calling it witless, in case I upset @Heathener
Again I think you are misunderstanding how GDP works. Saying GDP is 4% lower every year than it would have been otherwise does not involve the economy shrinking by 4% every year. Since GDP is a measure of national income, the simplest analogy is with personal income. Imagine you lose your job and your new job pays 4% less than your old job. Every year you are earning 4% less than you would have been if you stayed in your old job. This doesn't mean that your pay is going down by 4% every year.
This is my last comment on this, as I have dildos to attend to, and chisels lying idle
Let's go back to Roger's original remark
"Brexit is costing us 4% GDP a year"
A year, in ordinary English, means "every year", as I have said. "I earn £20k a year." "I drink thirty gallons of wine a year". "I go abroad 200 times a year". It clearly means EVERY year, not THIS year, let alone THIS YEAR BUT NEVER AGAIN
There are, in that light, only two common sense interpretations of Roger's comment. The first is: Brexit is costing us 4% of Britain's total economic output, our GDP, which has shrunk 4% every year since Brexit, and will likely continue to do so. But that is nonsense, as we all know
The other more charitable interpretation is that by Brexiting we are losing 4% potential growth, an opportunity cost, every year - and that without Brexit GDP growth would be, say, annually 7% rather than its present ~3%. But again, that's bollocks, for multiple reasons (and how would we even know in the context of Covid and war?)
I conclude that Roger's remark was witless. But I am sure he is a lovely guy, and he is very good on movies, and tells some cracking anecdotes, when he is in the mood, so peace to all
Good day
Sorry Leon but you're utterly wrong.
Let us say you are "earning £20k a year" as an example. 4% of that is £800. If you permanently lower your earnings to £19,200 then yes that has cost you 4% a year. You lose the £800 this year, but you also lose the £800 next year and the year after that too.
In theory Roger is right and you are wrong, in theory, and you know I'm not a Remoaner saying that, but that is the economics and I feel I must correct you on this.
For the avoidance of doubt I think Roger is wrong in practice, because the evidence is lacking. The UK grew more than the Eurozone in the decade pre-pandemic "despite Brexit" so it is hubristic and arrogant to assume we would have had an additional 4% growth beyond them on top of that. But it wouldn't be the first time Roger is hubristic and arrogant, there is nothing wrong with the claim in theory or saying "a year".
For those interested in Ukraine, here's the announcement on UK multiple-launch rockets. Ukrainian troops will be trained in the UK. We are definitely invested in this.
The problem I see with this very expensive kit is that the battle for the Donbas is being decided now. It is going to arrive too late. Also the provision of such expensive systems without adequate air defence will make them the highest priority targets for the Russian airforce.
It was obvious to a complete amateur like me over a month ago that the current battles were going to be won by Russian artillary unless something was done to counterbalance that. This is what has happened and I fear that Ukranian casualties in May and early June will have been horrendous. We really need to move faster, welcome though this is.
It looks to me that we're firmly in the Breakthrough Defeated quadrant - Russian military is unable to co-ordinate an integrated attack in time and space leading to piecemeal attacks unsupported by combat enablers. Any gains come at a high price in troops and material. Success is tactical at best; campaign ends in numerous operational setbacks and strategic defeat.
Yes Russia is winning right now. And has been for over a month. The Ukranians are showing incredible courage but their best trained troops are being chewed to pieces by intense artillary bombardments that leave the recipients wounded, concussed, deafened and disorientated. It's brutal and they very largely cannot fight back until the Russians try to take the cities.
Have the Russians achieved what they wanted to achieve in this time? Of course not. Have their casualties been beyond their worst nightmares? Certainly. Have they shown that the Russian bear was in fact sclerotic, sick, starved by corruption and poorly trained? Undoubtedly. But to pretend that they are not winning is delusional. The Ukranians themselves are saying as much. They need heavy artillary and they needed it a month ago. They are hanging on until it comes. I hope it is not too late.
Problem I see is that no-one knows how to end this war. One of the connected stupidities of Putin's invasion is that the only acceptable outcome for most of the actors is Russia's total defeat. It's not going to happen until Putin starts caring about the men he's tossing into the meat grinder. There's no sign of that. Ukraine's defeat hopefully will never happen. So we need a negotiated end to hostilities. What will Ukraine's quid be for the Russian quo of clearing out? They have nothing to offer Putin that he wants and which also doesn't undermine Ukraine.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
I agree. I think the reason they don't is because (a) they don't really have many and (b) are worried that they will fall apart under any sort of sustained scrutiny. So they want to keep them under wraps until the last possible moment.
I find that dishonest in its own way. I would have much more confidence in a Labour government if it showed evidence of really thinking through its programme for government and had the confidence to put it before us so that we can really see and scrutinise for ourselves what they propose. Not spring it on us 3 weeks before the GE.
There is very little difference currently between tory and labour policies as this Government has implemented pretty left wing policies
Tax rates are the highest they have ever been so Labour can't really talk about increasing rates.
The minimum wage has increased significantly with most places now paying £10 plus per hour for unskilled work so not really scope to say they would increase that.
Government spending is off the charts at the moment so they can't really say they will increase that.
Universal Credit is pretty generous so I doubt they would commit to increasing it as it will be a disincentive to work.
Thats why Labour are pretty quiet on any different polcies as their normal policies of the last 30 years are currently being implemented.
Somebody has to do something about the taper rate, which is a major disincentive to work. I've been on UC and was very reluctant to do overtime as I effectively got paid less than £2 per hour for it.
The Tories have a huge problem. A large chunk of Tory support backs Boris. That goes if they ditch him, this tends to be ex Lab hard-core brexiteers I think. But they're going to lose a large chunk of soft remain fiscally centre right voters that Cameron picked up and kept through the Corbyn era if he stays. Its insoluble, at least in time for the next GE.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
Yep - I do. I understand that while the UK needs the EU more than they need us, EU member states would still like better access to the UK market than they get currently and that, generally, the EU is made stronger by having a smooth, trust-based relationship with the UK.
You do this stuff for a living, and you’re not prone to lying fantasies, so I am happy to take it on trust. I sincerely hope you are right
If Starmer can fix some of this shit it would be great. I have long thought it would be a Remainer that might make Brexit work, as so many Brexiteers are ideologically wedded to a Platonic ideal of Brexit, and the more pragmatic Leavers - eg Hannan - have generally left the scene
And we agree that none of this can happen until Boris goes. He REALLY needs to go.
A rare moment of concord on PB
But you are wrong about remoaner ultras. They exist in numbers. @Scott_xP is far from alone in his dogmatism
I do not come across them except on here and on Twitter. I agree with them that leaving the EU was a mistake, but we have to move on from that. If they can't do it, they are going to be permanently disappointed. It is no way to lead a life.
You don't read the Guardian, then. The Labour Party's very own newspaper
From Polly Toynbee to Nick Cohen to Martin Kettle to dozens of others, they are all Rejoiners, they are merely staying reasonably quiet for now, so as not to scare the horses.
That will change as Starmer gets nearer to power. I expect the first Guardian editorial or lead columnist to suggest rejoining the SM within the year
We will rejoin at some point unless the EU blows up. Staying out will make us poorer, and people don't like being poor. And anti-EU sentiment is far stronger in the generation that will die in the next 20 years than among those who will still be alive and voting. Aligning ourselves with the SM is an intelligent first step in that process. Of course we will have people advocating that - a Tory MP no less already has. None of this will happen quickly though. Perhaps you will have exited to the great free holiday in the sky by the time it happens. Perhaps I will have, too.
Nah. The EU is heading in a direction we can never accept and the longer we are out the more those differences will become apparent.
What I do think will happen at some point is we will join EFTA and probably the EEA. But I would say that as it has always been the best result in my view.
The EU is not heading very clearly in any direction at all. It is as likely to blow up as to become a coherent single federal state in my opinion, and more likely to continue to muddle along as a collection of sovereign states who make some decisions collectively. It will probably see an increasing division between an inner, more integrated, core and the rest. The UK could easily find a berth in that outer ring in ten or twenty years - a wasteful and damaging journey back to where we would have been anyway.
Why bother and suffer all the inevitable pain of the political and social problems associated with the EU when the trading partner route lies with EFTA and the EEA. If we will end up anywhere closer to the EU it is there. As long as EFTA exists it will always be viewed as preferable to full EU membership.
I am not bothered either way TBH but being a rule taker not a rule maker isn't without frustrations of its own (especially as the UK was pretty influential in writing the rules when it was an EU member).
Wrong in both instances. The 'rule taker' idea is simply a myth that was propagated by EU supporters who were worried that EFTA membership was seen as a viable alternative.
And given that so much of the decision making inside the EU is now by QMV the idea that we were influential in that is also a very dubious assertion.
Not really true Richard. QMV was inevitable after the expansion east which was largely driven by the UK in the face of French scepticism. Additionally the adoption of what were once seen as Anglo-Saxon attitudes on deregulation of state industries in Europe would not have happened without British membership. The Europeans were hugely influenced by Thatcherite economics even though they, and the Brexiteers would never want to admit it.
QMV was not inevitable, just needed for the EU to be able to make decisions easier, but that easier level of decision making means able to make more decisions without us.
Harder, but unanimous decision making could have remained an option which would entail the EU doing less but concentrating on doing what it does do right. That was an option, and it was what I and many other erstwhile pro-Europeans wanted it to be doing, provide only the higher level lower-common denominator framework but leave the day to day decisions to the elected governments of nation states.
Lisbon rejected the latter option, and Cameron's failed reforms failed to bring it back. That is why many of us former pro-Europeans switched in the end to Leave.
I am sorry Boris, but you were never a pro-European. That is one of the most obvious fibs I have ever seen along with your idol Boris Johnson claiming he was not aware of any rule breaking. I am sure you think it gives you greater credibility to claim it, but it in incredible in the genuine sense of the word.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
Good post. Only bit I disagree with is the last para and I have to say normally I wouldn't disagree with you because as you say if you decide to do something then you need to take responsibility for that. However that wasn't the choice with Brexit. If you already had a holiday home (and to make it worse had pets) you were completely scuppered by it. You made the decision when none of these restrictions applied. Now the pets stuff could be made a lot easier, but as usual the UK Govt has made a pigs ear of it. I wouldn't mind an offline conversation with @IanB2 who I know travels with his dog. One of my friends sold his house to travel around Europe in a motorhome. Brexit caused him to have to come home and live on his son's driveway!
Re the first para I fully agree, but as you accept all people are different and have different hang ups which aren't rational, but we aren't rational beings and I reckon if the travel a lot you get less fazed. To give you an example I suffer from anxiety (like many) but only in a very specific and unusual form, mainly to do with taking on campaigns, which I do a lot of. I have none of the normal anxieties and for instance I can present to 100 people without any problem. I once attended a seminar of people with anxieties and the people all had to say what they suffered from. As it went around the group I was thinking 'I shouldn't be here, you are all a bunch of loonies', except when I spoke they all looked at me as if to say 'What the hell is wrong with you? Why take on these campaigns'
I guess in a nut shell most of us are a bit nutty. Those that aren't are a bit boring. You are definitely not boring
The biggest challenge with extended travel in Europe is the 90/180 visa rules for humans. The dog thing is surmountable - the new paperwork is an immense hassle, but it's a question of money and preparation, and doesn't actually stop you travelling (the new certificate lasts four months, but if it expires you just pay for a new one). And many Brits are doing what I have managed to do, and secure a new pet passport from a friendly vet in an EU country - which should make it cheaper and easier for us to travel in future. But there's a tussle going on with the UK government - which wants to be inside the scheme without accepting that the EU sets the rules - and meanwhile the EU Commission is trying very hard to stop British holidaymakers getting hold of EU PPs. On the relevant Facebook and other forums there are acres of posts discussing it all.
Thanks @IanB2 The problem we have found is you need to get the health certificate within 10 days of travel, but we can't get a vet to do one for about 2 months which means travel needs long term planning and no just popping over the channel for a weekend. Interested in being able to get an EU passport if possible. What do you also do re worming certificate prior to returning. Is that simple and how much?
And of course the other annoying thing is it costs more to take your bloody dog to France than it costs to take yourself.
If you know you're going to travel, you book the AHC with your vet weeks in advance. Or you can use one of the few specialists that has popped up (Abbeywell, Passpets...) - they charge more for short notice certificates, but if you don't mind paying, you can get one quickly. Abbeywell regularly bails out people who pitch up at Dover or for the tunnel with flawed documentation and need their holiday rescuing.
The worming certificate is easy - some people just call at vets and have it done there and then; I like to have an appointment lined up. You have five days (so for a weekend break can actually have it done in the UK before you leave) and it typically costs between €15-€25. Nearer Calais, for some mysterious reason, many vets are charging €50 or more, hence it is cheaper to get it done further away. Last October in Freiburg it cost me €11 and last month in Bergamo €20.
Getting a PP was easy, and is gradually becoming more difficult. In France and Belgium it's already exceptionally difficult, in Italy it can be done but the bureaucracy you have to jump through is worse, in Spain and Germany it's still possible if you hunt around - but one feels the door is slowly being closed. Whether they get as far as trying to 'disqualify' those already issued to travelling Brits is another matter. If you have a foreign address, long-stay visa or residency it is much easier.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
The bikes thing is interesting. In our metalwork classes in school the teacher made weird bikes. Ones where the wheels turned in a different direct to the wheel, one where you went backwards when peddling, a double decker bike, etc.
The Tories have a huge problem. A large chunk of Tory support backs Boris. That goes if they ditch him, this tends to be ex Lab hard-core brexiteers I think. But they're going to lose a large chunk of soft remain fiscally centre right voters that Cameron picked up and kept through the Corbyn era if he stays. Its insoluble, at least in time for the next GE.
They need to find someone who would be seen as a unity candidate, or perhaps a unity pairing. Brexit is finished, over with. What people did or said they thought on that subject is no longer relevant. They need to find someone who can heal wounds and demonstrate competence and has an air of trustworthiness .
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
I agree. I think the reason they don't is because (a) they don't really have many and (b) are worried that they will fall apart under any sort of sustained scrutiny. So they want to keep them under wraps until the last possible moment.
I find that dishonest in its own way. I would have much more confidence in a Labour government if it showed evidence of really thinking through its programme for government and had the confidence to put it before us so that we can really see and scrutinise for ourselves what they propose. Not spring it on us 3 weeks before the GE.
There is very little difference currently between tory and labour policies as this Government has implemented pretty left wing policies
Tax rates are the highest they have ever been so Labour can't really talk about increasing rates.
The minimum wage has increased significantly with most places now paying £10 plus per hour for unskilled work so not really scope to say they would increase that.
Government spending is off the charts at the moment so they can't really say they will increase that.
Universal Credit is pretty generous so I doubt they would commit to increasing it as it will be a disincentive to work.
Thats why Labour are pretty quiet on any different polcies as their normal policies of the last 30 years are currently being implemented.
Somebody has to do something abouit the taper rate. I've been on UC and was very reluctant to do overtime as I effectively got paid less than £2 per hour for it.
I've sen it stated that they've removed the effective marginal taxation of greater than 100% for certain cases. Does anyone know if this has actually happened?
Yes, some poor souls were in the situation that their benefits would be withdrawn *faster* than their income from wages increased. Go to work, have less money.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
It was not @Leon who chased Alastair Meeks off this forum. He left because of a spat with another poster. I know because I was there when it happened, as were others.
You have made this accusation twice now against @Leon. It is unjustified and you really owe him an apology.
That is true, it was a pirate wot dun it.
Nonetheless Leon does have an uncanny ability to p*** other posters off. In my case I find his claimed expertise of autism unsubtly followed by the use of ASD as a derogatory narrative for former Prime Ministers particularly offensive. I suspect others could name their poison.
It was indeed and it wasn't because of being offensive with him either, he just didn't like a genuine difference of opinion, politely stated and he took it personally.
Mr Meeks made his own decision and I respect and regret that, but it was his choice, and possibly for the best as he was taking things personally. Leon absolutely should not get the "blame" for that, he wasn't involved.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
You can have two UK passports if you are a frequent traveller or need them for work reasons or to visit so-called 'incompatible' countries.
It doesn't, of course, help you get round the EU visa rules as entry and exit increasingly moves over to being recorded on a central database.
And if you're missing an exit stamp, that could be a problem whenever you tried to use that document again.
As long as the EU relies on old-fashioned stamps (why do they do this?!), then a 2nd passport allows you to evade the visa rules
I'm not encouraging it. But if they are stupid enough not to install e-gates everywhere, making life better for everyone, then pff
As I say, the problem will be solved by the free market (or e-gates). Countries that want British tourists and need the money will make it easy for us to go there. Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Portugal, probably Spain
The problem is that it's a mix, with the most common arrangement being both a physical stamp and a scan into a database. So the second passport really isn't going to help you that much, unless you travel forewarned as to which border crossings are keyed into the EU-wide database.
I've never driven outside of the UK, and I never intend to try driving on the right. I consider the risk too great.
My wife has done it a couple of times years ago on holiday, and while generally OK she tended to keep the speed right down and we had a couple of anxious moments. I don't think she'd want to do it again.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The way in which Thatcher was actually ousted, was by most or all of the cabinet telling her that she no longer had their support. The second round leadership vote in 1990 was the way the Conservative MPs publicly told the cabinet that her days were numbered. This is pretty much the same situation that Mr Johnson is in now (albeit the a different voting procedure), and if half of the cabinet decide that he is too much of a liability for the next election, they can easily engineer his "resignation".
And they should. The problem is that he has surrounded himself with lightweights and incompetents in his own image, so don't hold your breath.
What will Ukraine's quid be for the Russian quo of clearing out? They have nothing to offer Putin that he wants and which also doesn't undermine Ukraine.
It's obviously going to be territory. The Ukrainians will have to decide the trade off between thousands of lives and economic ruin vs hundreds of kms of shell cratered mud and shithole izbas.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
I didn't say Roger is witless. I said his remark is. And it is. There is no way Britain is "losing 4% of GDP every year because Brexit". So, no it was not "ad hominem"
Besides: what do you expect me to do? Ignore an obviously false statement out of politeness? Say "Well done Rog on your great insight", even though it is clearly and foolishly wrong?
If I say something as daft as that - and it hardly unknown - please feel free to call my remark witless. I won't complain, I will thank you for pointing out my egregious error
And I'm sure if you asked Mr Meeks why he left PB, his answer won't be "because people chased me off"
An economist writes: Actually Roger is absolutely right and you have misunderstood what he has said. Since I don't engage in ad hominem remarks I won't call you witless. GDP is a flow concept. It measures the amount of output (or equivalently spending or income, the three are theoretically equivalent) produced in a given economy over a given period of time. The statement that Brexit has cost us x% of GDP per year (I won't comment on whether x is 4 or some other number as estimates differ, but FWIW 4 seems reasonable and is in the ballpark of the BOE and OBR estimates) means that the level of GDP is 4% below what it would have been if we hadn't Brexited, every year or every quarter. It doesn't imply lower GDP growth for ever, simply a permanently lower level of GDP vs this counterfactual. I hope this helps.
lol. So we Brexited six years ago and we've lost (on average?) 4% GDP a year and our economy is now about 20% smaller than it was in 2016? Crumbs!
Or is this from 2020 when we actually Brexited so we've lost 4% and counting, except that of course Covid intervened in 2020 and we lost about 10% of the economy due to that, then regained it, and how anyone can perceive actual Brexit effects in the middle of a global plague and now a war, fuck knows
And of course Roger said we are "losing 4% of GDP a year". Which means - in normal, sane English - 4% every year. If I say I earn about £30k a year, I mean every year. Otherwise I would specifiy "THIS year"
Apart from that, your comment is mere sophistry. I will refrain from calling it witless, in case I upset @Heathener
Again I think you are misunderstanding how GDP works. Saying GDP is 4% lower every year than it would have been otherwise does not involve the economy shrinking by 4% every year. Since GDP is a measure of national income, the simplest analogy is with personal income. Imagine you lose your job and your new job pays 4% less than your old job. Every year you are earning 4% less than you would have been if you stayed in your old job. This doesn't mean that your pay is going down by 4% every year.
This is my last comment on this, as I have dildos to attend to, and chisels lying idle
Let's go back to Roger's original remark
"Brexit is costing us 4% GDP a year"
A year, in ordinary English, means "every year", as I have said. "I earn £20k a year." "I drink thirty gallons of wine a year". "I go abroad 200 times a year". It clearly means EVERY year, not THIS year, let alone THIS YEAR BUT NEVER AGAIN
There are, in that light, only two common sense interpretations of Roger's comment. The first is: Brexit is costing us 4% of Britain's total economic output, our GDP, which has shrunk 4% every year since Brexit, and will likely continue to do so. But that is nonsense, as we all know
The other more charitable interpretation is that by Brexiting we are losing 4% potential growth, an opportunity cost, every year - and that without Brexit GDP growth would be, say, annually 7% rather than its present ~3%. But again, that's bollocks, for multiple reasons (and how would we even know in the context of Covid and war?)
I conclude that Roger's remark was witless. But I am sure he is a lovely guy, and he is very good on movies, and tells some cracking anecdotes, when he is in the mood, so peace to all
Good day
Sorry Leon but you're utterly wrong.
Let us say you are "earning £20k a year" as an example. 4% of that is £800. If you permanently lower your earnings to £19,200 then yes that has cost you 4% a year. You lose the £800 this year, but you also lose the £800 next year and the year after that too.
In theory Roger is right and you are wrong, in theory, and you know I'm not a Remoaner saying that, but that is the economics and I feel I must correct you on this.
For the avoidance of doubt I think Roger is wrong in practice, because the evidence is lacking. The UK grew more than the Eurozone in the decade pre-pandemic "despite Brexit" so it is hubristic and arrogant to assume we would have had an additional 4% growth beyond them on top of that. But it wouldn't be the first time Roger is hubristic and arrogant, there is nothing wrong with the claim in theory or saying "a year".
GAHHH
I know exactly what you are saying but no one uses GDP in this abstruse sense when they talk about "losing x% GDP a year"
See the column Reductions in Real GDP. The GFC cost us 7%. In total. That's how GDP loss is measured
OR you can use it as meaning: lost potential growth, which the Treasury tried to do when they predicted the outcome of Brexit
"UK would lose £130bn in growth if Brexit deal passed, figures suggest
Estimates published by the government last year show an agreement similar to Boris Johnson’s settlement, which envisions striking a limited free trade deal with the EU, would strip 6.7% from the UK’s expected path of GDP growth between now and 2034"
That's 6.7% OVER 15 YEARS, not 6.7% a year every year
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
I agree. I think the reason they don't is because (a) they don't really have many and (b) are worried that they will fall apart under any sort of sustained scrutiny. So they want to keep them under wraps until the last possible moment.
I find that dishonest in its own way. I would have much more confidence in a Labour government if it showed evidence of really thinking through its programme for government and had the confidence to put it before us so that we can really see and scrutinise for ourselves what they propose. Not spring it on us 3 weeks before the GE.
There is very little difference currently between tory and labour policies as this Government has implemented pretty left wing policies
Tax rates are the highest they have ever been so Labour can't really talk about increasing rates.
The minimum wage has increased significantly with most places now paying £10 plus per hour for unskilled work so not really scope to say they would increase that.
Government spending is off the charts at the moment so they can't really say they will increase that.
Universal Credit is pretty generous so I doubt they would commit to increasing it as it will be a disincentive to work.
Thats why Labour are pretty quiet on any different polcies as their normal policies of the last 30 years are currently being implemented.
Somebody has to do something about the taper rate, which is a major disincentive to work. I've been on UC and was very reluctant to do overtime as I effectively got paid less than £2 per hour for it.
As 'doing something about the taper rate' has been an issue all my life there must be an inherent difficulty to it. UC came into existence partly to deal with its disincentives.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
I agree. I think the reason they don't is because (a) they don't really have many and (b) are worried that they will fall apart under any sort of sustained scrutiny. So they want to keep them under wraps until the last possible moment.
I find that dishonest in its own way. I would have much more confidence in a Labour government if it showed evidence of really thinking through its programme for government and had the confidence to put it before us so that we can really see and scrutinise for ourselves what they propose. Not spring it on us 3 weeks before the GE.
There is very little difference currently between tory and labour policies as this Government has implemented pretty left wing policies
Tax rates are the highest they have ever been so Labour can't really talk about increasing rates.
The minimum wage has increased significantly with most places now paying £10 plus per hour for unskilled work so not really scope to say they would increase that.
Government spending is off the charts at the moment so they can't really say they will increase that.
Universal Credit is pretty generous so I doubt they would commit to increasing it as it will be a disincentive to work.
Thats why Labour are pretty quiet on any different polcies as their normal policies of the last 30 years are currently being implemented.
Somebody has to do something abouit the taper rate. I've been on UC and was very reluctant to do overtime as I effectively got paid less than £2 per hour for it.
I've sen it stated that they've removed the effective marginal taxation of greater than 100% for certain cases. Does anyone know if this has actually happened?
Yes, some poor souls were in the situation that their benefits would be withdrawn *faster* than their income from wages increased. Go to work, have less money.
The taper rate is now 55%
I have helped a friend claim UC and thats what it says on her award.
Its also when I discovered just how generous UC is.
The Tories have a huge problem. A large chunk of Tory support backs Boris. That goes if they ditch him, this tends to be ex Lab hard-core brexiteers I think. But they're going to lose a large chunk of soft remain fiscally centre right voters that Cameron picked up and kept through the Corbyn era if he stays. Its insoluble, at least in time for the next GE.
Looking on my FB, my local MP still seems to be backing Boris.
The Tories have a huge problem. A large chunk of Tory support backs Boris. That goes if they ditch him, this tends to be ex Lab hard-core brexiteers I think. But they're going to lose a large chunk of soft remain fiscally centre right voters that Cameron picked up and kept through the Corbyn era if he stays. Its insoluble, at least in time for the next GE.
I disagree. I thought that there might be something special about Theresa May with regards to her performance in the Red Wall. I was wrong, these places have just trended Tory. Perhaps someone like Jeremy Hunt would put them off a bit, but the Tories shouldn't worry about this sort of thing. Johnson has to go.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
Yep - I do. I understand that while the UK needs the EU more than they need us, EU member states would still like better access to the UK market than they get currently and that, generally, the EU is made stronger by having a smooth, trust-based relationship with the UK.
You do this stuff for a living, and you’re not prone to lying fantasies, so I am happy to take it on trust. I sincerely hope you are right
If Starmer can fix some of this shit it would be great. I have long thought it would be a Remainer that might make Brexit work, as so many Brexiteers are ideologically wedded to a Platonic ideal of Brexit, and the more pragmatic Leavers - eg Hannan - have generally left the scene
And we agree that none of this can happen until Boris goes. He REALLY needs to go.
A rare moment of concord on PB
But you are wrong about remoaner ultras. They exist in numbers. @Scott_xP is far from alone in his dogmatism
I do not come across them except on here and on Twitter. I agree with them that leaving the EU was a mistake, but we have to move on from that. If they can't do it, they are going to be permanently disappointed. It is no way to lead a life.
You don't read the Guardian, then. The Labour Party's very own newspaper
From Polly Toynbee to Nick Cohen to Martin Kettle to dozens of others, they are all Rejoiners, they are merely staying reasonably quiet for now, so as not to scare the horses.
That will change as Starmer gets nearer to power. I expect the first Guardian editorial or lead columnist to suggest rejoining the SM within the year
We will rejoin at some point unless the EU blows up. Staying out will make us poorer, and people don't like being poor. And anti-EU sentiment is far stronger in the generation that will die in the next 20 years than among those who will still be alive and voting. Aligning ourselves with the SM is an intelligent first step in that process. Of course we will have people advocating that - a Tory MP no less already has. None of this will happen quickly though. Perhaps you will have exited to the great free holiday in the sky by the time it happens. Perhaps I will have, too.
Nah. The EU is heading in a direction we can never accept and the longer we are out the more those differences will become apparent.
What I do think will happen at some point is we will join EFTA and probably the EEA. But I would say that as it has always been the best result in my view.
The EU is not heading very clearly in any direction at all. It is as likely to blow up as to become a coherent single federal state in my opinion, and more likely to continue to muddle along as a collection of sovereign states who make some decisions collectively. It will probably see an increasing division between an inner, more integrated, core and the rest. The UK could easily find a berth in that outer ring in ten or twenty years - a wasteful and damaging journey back to where we would have been anyway.
Why bother and suffer all the inevitable pain of the political and social problems associated with the EU when the trading partner route lies with EFTA and the EEA. If we will end up anywhere closer to the EU it is there. As long as EFTA exists it will always be viewed as preferable to full EU membership.
I am not bothered either way TBH but being a rule taker not a rule maker isn't without frustrations of its own (especially as the UK was pretty influential in writing the rules when it was an EU member).
Wrong in both instances. The 'rule taker' idea is simply a myth that was propagated by EU supporters who were worried that EFTA membership was seen as a viable alternative.
And given that so much of the decision making inside the EU is now by QMV the idea that we were influential in that is also a very dubious assertion.
Not really true Richard. QMV was inevitable after the expansion east which was largely driven by the UK in the face of French scepticism. Additionally the adoption of what were once seen as Anglo-Saxon attitudes on deregulation of state industries in Europe would not have happened without British membership. The Europeans were hugely influenced by Thatcherite economics even though they, and the Brexiteers would never want to admit it.
QMV was not inevitable, just needed for the EU to be able to make decisions easier, but that easier level of decision making means able to make more decisions without us.
Harder, but unanimous decision making could have remained an option which would entail the EU doing less but concentrating on doing what it does do right. That was an option, and it was what I and many other erstwhile pro-Europeans wanted it to be doing, provide only the higher level lower-common denominator framework but leave the day to day decisions to the elected governments of nation states.
Lisbon rejected the latter option, and Cameron's failed reforms failed to bring it back. That is why many of us former pro-Europeans switched in the end to Leave.
I am sorry Boris, but you were never a pro-European. That is one of the most obvious fibs I have ever seen along with your idol Boris Johnson claiming he was not aware of any rule breaking. I am sure you think it gives you greater credibility to claim it, but it in incredible in the genuine sense of the word.
I'm sorry but I was a pro-European, I've been posting on this site for 14 years now and plenty of people will be able to confirm I was pro-European and making pro-European arguments as they will remember them and my conversion from Remain to Leave was noted at the time, just like we have noted williamglenn and rochdalepioneers also changing side.
The fact you don't believe it says more about you than it does about me.
On holidays we came back from a week in the Lake District last night. It was a pleasant holiday although it rained far too much. My wife looked at the chaos at the airports and decided that it just wasn't worth it this year. She was right (as usual). I suppose that saved the UK about £3k off the balance of trade. I suspect that many more will do the same. It was also noticeable in the hotel and restaurants we visited that far more local people were now working in these establishments than we would have seen in previous years.
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The way in which Thatcher was actually ousted, was by most or all of the cabinet telling her that she no longer had their support. The second round leadership vote in 1990 was the way the Conservative MPs publicly told the cabinet that her days were numbered. This is pretty much the same situation that Mr Johnson is in now (albeit the a different voting procedure), and if half of the cabinet decide that he is too much of a liability for the next election, they can easily engineer his "resignation".
True. But this is a different type of cheerleading cabinet. Apparently in vintage days before I was born they didn’t have cheerleading cabinets, they balanced all the best people from all wings of party which meant it was strong government governing well. I prefer the sound of that.
What you are referring to is europhilia Ken Clark still in Lady Thatchers cabinet to make that revolt happen! This is sooooo different with all useless cheerleaders around Boris as the supposed big beasts today. That ain’t happening doofy. 😕 Boris and his cabinet are tough it out, don’t walk when out types, it’s the modern way.
I think why we are governed more poorly without vintage type politics of integrity, honour, and strong cabinets tbh.
Changing rules for another vonc ain’t happening either just to produce the same result. That would if anything strengthen Boris and make 1922 laughing stock, so they need to be very careful about manufacturing the next VONC they can’t keep throwing spaghetti at wall voncs getting nowhere.
We have to accept he’s in till the next election where he gets chance to defend his eighty seat majority. 😩😩😩😩😩
The Tories have a huge problem. A large chunk of Tory support backs Boris. That goes if they ditch him, this tends to be ex Lab hard-core brexiteers I think. But they're going to lose a large chunk of soft remain fiscally centre right voters that Cameron picked up and kept through the Corbyn era if he stays. Its insoluble, at least in time for the next GE.
They need to find someone who would be seen as a unity candidate, or perhaps a unity pairing. Brexit is finished, over with. What people did or said they thought on that subject is no longer relevant. They need to find someone who can heal wounds and demonstrate competence and has an air of trustworthiness .
The Conservatives (or this iteration, anyway) can't let the wounds of 2015-20 heal. Because the pain of those wounds is the main thing holding the team together. Brexit needs to simultaneously be done as an achievement for the ages, and be in perpetual peril.
That sounds less stupid if you don't say it out loud.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
I agree. I think the reason they don't is because (a) they don't really have many and (b) are worried that they will fall apart under any sort of sustained scrutiny. So they want to keep them under wraps until the last possible moment.
I find that dishonest in its own way. I would have much more confidence in a Labour government if it showed evidence of really thinking through its programme for government and had the confidence to put it before us so that we can really see and scrutinise for ourselves what they propose. Not spring it on us 3 weeks before the GE.
There is very little difference currently between tory and labour policies as this Government has implemented pretty left wing policies
Tax rates are the highest they have ever been so Labour can't really talk about increasing rates.
The minimum wage has increased significantly with most places now paying £10 plus per hour for unskilled work so not really scope to say they would increase that.
Government spending is off the charts at the moment so they can't really say they will increase that.
Universal Credit is pretty generous so I doubt they would commit to increasing it as it will be a disincentive to work.
Thats why Labour are pretty quiet on any different polcies as their normal policies of the last 30 years are currently being implemented.
Somebody has to do something abouit the taper rate. I've been on UC and was very reluctant to do overtime as I effectively got paid less than £2 per hour for it.
I've sen it stated that they've removed the effective marginal taxation of greater than 100% for certain cases. Does anyone know if this has actually happened?
Yes, some poor souls were in the situation that their benefits would be withdrawn *faster* than their income from wages increased. Go to work, have less money.
The taper rate is now 55%
I have helped a friend claim UC and thats what it says on her award.
Its also when I discovered just how generous UC is.
IIRC the 100%+ effect was caused by multiple benefits being involved - it only happened in a very small number of cases. But it was indicative of more common situations where the withdrawal rates were 70%+
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
I didn't say Roger is witless. I said his remark is. And it is. There is no way Britain is "losing 4% of GDP every year because Brexit". So, no it was not "ad hominem"
Besides: what do you expect me to do? Ignore an obviously false statement out of politeness? Say "Well done Rog on your great insight", even though it is clearly and foolishly wrong?
If I say something as daft as that - and it hardly unknown - please feel free to call my remark witless. I won't complain, I will thank you for pointing out my egregious error
And I'm sure if you asked Mr Meeks why he left PB, his answer won't be "because people chased me off"
An economist writes: Actually Roger is absolutely right and you have misunderstood what he has said. Since I don't engage in ad hominem remarks I won't call you witless. GDP is a flow concept. It measures the amount of output (or equivalently spending or income, the three are theoretically equivalent) produced in a given economy over a given period of time. The statement that Brexit has cost us x% of GDP per year (I won't comment on whether x is 4 or some other number as estimates differ, but FWIW 4 seems reasonable and is in the ballpark of the BOE and OBR estimates) means that the level of GDP is 4% below what it would have been if we hadn't Brexited, every year or every quarter. It doesn't imply lower GDP growth for ever, simply a permanently lower level of GDP vs this counterfactual. I hope this helps.
lol. So we Brexited six years ago and we've lost (on average?) 4% GDP a year and our economy is now about 20% smaller than it was in 2016? Crumbs!
Or is this from 2020 when we actually Brexited so we've lost 4% and counting, except that of course Covid intervened in 2020 and we lost about 10% of the economy due to that, then regained it, and how anyone can perceive actual Brexit effects in the middle of a global plague and now a war, fuck knows
And of course Roger said we are "losing 4% of GDP a year". Which means - in normal, sane English - 4% every year. If I say I earn about £30k a year, I mean every year. Otherwise I would specifiy "THIS year"
Apart from that, your comment is mere sophistry. I will refrain from calling it witless, in case I upset @Heathener
Again I think you are misunderstanding how GDP works. Saying GDP is 4% lower every year than it would have been otherwise does not involve the economy shrinking by 4% every year. Since GDP is a measure of national income, the simplest analogy is with personal income. Imagine you lose your job and your new job pays 4% less than your old job. Every year you are earning 4% less than you would have been if you stayed in your old job. This doesn't mean that your pay is going down by 4% every year.
This is my last comment on this, as I have dildos to attend to, and chisels lying idle
Let's go back to Roger's original remark
"Brexit is costing us 4% GDP a year"
A year, in ordinary English, means "every year", as I have said. "I earn £20k a year." "I drink thirty gallons of wine a year". "I go abroad 200 times a year". It clearly means EVERY year, not THIS year, let alone THIS YEAR BUT NEVER AGAIN
There are, in that light, only two common sense interpretations of Roger's comment. The first is: Brexit is costing us 4% of Britain's total economic output, our GDP, which has shrunk 4% every year since Brexit, and will likely continue to do so. But that is nonsense, as we all know
The other more charitable interpretation is that by Brexiting we are losing 4% potential growth, an opportunity cost, every year - and that without Brexit GDP growth would be, say, annually 7% rather than its present ~3%. But again, that's bollocks, for multiple reasons (and how would we even know in the context of Covid and war?)
I conclude that Roger's remark was witless. But I am sure he is a lovely guy, and he is very good on movies, and tells some cracking anecdotes, when he is in the mood, so peace to all
Good day
I don't think you understand this stuff at all. Roger was referring to the level of GDP not the growth rate. Whether you agree that the number is 4% or not is a different question, but he expressed it completely clearly and accurately. Go back and read my explanations of this, and if that doesn't work go and read up on GDP somewhere else. And stop calling people witless when you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
Means the we are permanently poorer by 4% rather than seeing a dip and then bouncing back, as with Covid. Important difference.
I think the drag is more than that, but that's the idea. I also saw some figures from the Bank of England that annual business investment is suppressed by 25% because of Brexit.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
The bikes thing is interesting. In our metalwork classes in school the teacher made weird bikes. Ones where the wheels turned in a different direct to the wheel, one where you went backwards when peddling, a double decker bike, etc.
It was an interesting experiment because the subject had brain scans while he was doing it, and it revealed the extent of the re-wiring and rededication of brain 'space' that goes on when we learn something new. For me - as with Leon - it 'clicked' as an explanation for the various stages I've gone through when driving on the right. I've just been seven weeks in Europe and am now back and I can honestly say I made no mistakes nor had to think about it at all (except once on a petrol forecourt when I had to think about how best to navigate past the other moving traffic) - the point does arrive when it just comes naturally.
For a newbie, of course, they have the choice between avoidance - deciding it's not worth the effort or risk - or jumping in and learning through practice. There are various tricks - in the early days I used to keep a loop of string tied round the right side of the steering wheel as a reminder - but there is always the risk of a beginner getting it wrong, as Ms Sacoolas discovered with sadly tragic consequences.
Last week, one MP told me this about the 1922 Ctte rules: “That the rules can be changed ‘in an afternoon’ is correct. The once-in-12 months is a false comfort. May was asked to name a date or the rules would be changed. She blinked. Boris might not."
what's the point? the new vote would get pretty much same result surely?
The point is that the next vote isn't on 6th June 2023 but can be at anytime the 1922 committee know the game is up.
They're not so much rules as guidance, as someone here is wont to say.
And given Johnson's lifelong attitude to rules, it is right and proper that the failure of a rule to protect him should form part of his downfall.
The morning after Wakefield and Tiverton?
What is our analysis of the balance of pro/anti Johnson on the 1922 committee? Yes, they can change the rules, but how likely are the current members to want to? I believe they are all backbenchers? - which should increase the chance. But the history of "we don't like the result, let's vote again" decisions is not encouraging, and associated by many Brexiteers with allegedly sneaky EU behaviour.
I don’t see how they could change the 12-month rule during the 12-month period, purely for immediate reasons. The point of the rule, is to give the leader a grace period and to shut up the constant speculation about a challenge.
Personally, I think he resigns after the 2023 local elections, and is voted out a year from now if that doesn’t happen.
If the point of the rule is to shut up the constant speculation about a challenge, it is apparent that the rule doesn't work, because there's still constant speculation about a challenge (there's just a bit more speculation about how it would work)! :-) That was true with May and it's been true so far with Johnson (albeit "so far" is only 13 hours...).
It's not a "natural" rule. You need a majority to win: that's a natural rule. You can't have a second VONC in 12 months. That was an arbitrary rule to achieve a purpose, and it doesn't even achieve that. It's a fairly recent rule. It's a rule that is easy to change. That's the realpolitik: it's not so much rules, as guidance, as was said above.
It is a natural rule, but it's clearly an inadequate one.
Yeah. Was kind of wondering if there needs to be a secondary bar? Like the old margin of 15%? Something like 60% or even two thirds and you continue. With an absolute bar on another challenge for a year. Less than half you're out as now. Between those figures, a leadership election. But one in which the incumbent is perfectly entitled to stand again. We'd have a leadership election now. But one including the PM. And Hunt, presumably. And, at least the Tory Party could have it out. Instead. We drift on. Like a zebra who has escaped the lions, but is bleeding out alone.
I think it either needs to be two-thirds, or a simple majority of backbenchers only. But I like the idea of two separate thresholds.
It's there as an unspoken rule that previous Conservative leaders have understood, albeit with some needing more help than others to arrive at that understanding. It's why Thatcher (quickly) and May (slowly) stood down and Major (just about) survived.
And unspoken but understood rules are a good thing, except when someone barges in with a "there's nothing written down, you can't make me" attitude. Which is roughly where we have been with the PM since he arrived on the public stage.
Well. Perhaps it needs writing down then? There's far too much bumbling amateurism and relying on personal honour about.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
You can have two UK passports if you are a frequent traveller or need them for work reasons or to visit so-called 'incompatible' countries.
It doesn't, of course, help you get round the EU visa rules as entry and exit increasingly moves over to being recorded on a central database.
And if you're missing an exit stamp, that could be a problem whenever you tried to use that document again.
As long as the EU relies on old-fashioned stamps (why do they do this?!), then a 2nd passport allows you to evade the visa rules
I'm not encouraging it. But if they are stupid enough not to install e-gates everywhere, making life better for everyone, then pff
As I say, the problem will be solved by the free market (or e-gates). Countries that want British tourists and need the money will make it easy for us to go there. Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Portugal, probably Spain
The EU isn't relying on old fashion stamps, it is us British travellers who are. The EU is now recording it electronically, but we are scared of falling foul of the rules so need the proof we haven't (I gave you the example of the woman who was deported from Spain, although that may have been before the electronic system came into force, because her leaving Spain on a previous trip wasn't recorded).
To be honest I have no idea how it works with 2 passports, but if you do have a hiccup with the electronic system (and with your level of travel you might) and you have an incomplete passport (because you have 2) you might find yourself back on the plane to the UK tout sweet.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
1. Terrible idea, hence its implementation by the government. 2. Good idea in theory, but how are they going to pay for things? This would be better as a major reform like unifying NI and income tax. 3. This isn't as good as it sounds on the surface as lots of small businessses are already business rate exempt. 4. Meh. This isn't something the government should be doing. 5. Complete waste of time and money. And if this is talking about pandemic-related fraud, Labour are just as culpable as the Tories anyway. 6. I wouldn't say no, but it's not as important as: 7. This is absolutely essential - but is it compatible with increasing the UC level? 8. Surely happening next year anyway - it want up from £8.91 to £9.50 this year. 9. How does this improve on the current situation? I assume this is aimed at shutting down companies like Uber and Deliveroo which ordinary people love but the Left has always hated.
Maybe a 4/10 grade at the moment. Not unpromising but needs a hell of a lot more work.
I guess this is why it's not super easy to find because people like to criticize. Personally the list is sensible but insufficient.
Some more detail on energy policy:
1. Invest £6n a year on retrofitting houses 2. Reverse 7 year moratorium on onshore wind 3. Double offshore wind targets 4. Press on with all forms of renewable energy (that's not really a policy difference tbh) 5. End the delay on new nuclear plants -> must admit I didn't know Labour was particularly keen on nuclear...
Of course people like to criticise. We have to test Labour's offering because we need to be persuaded that it's better than the alternative.
With energy policiy, it doesn't much matter either way, as both parties are fully committed to the hard net zero target.
Very happy for Labour's policy offering to be tested vs. the Tory alternative.
What seems to happen though is: Labour's policy is tested vs idealized perfect individual policy, inevitably falls short on some particular metric... and then, *in a process I don't fully understand* people decide to vote Tory or stay at home.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
It was not @Leon who chased Alastair Meeks off this forum. He left because of a spat with another poster. I know because I was there when it happened, as were others.
You have made this accusation twice now against @Leon. It is unjustified and you really owe him an apology.
That is true, it was a pirate wot dun it.
Nonetheless Leon does have an uncanny ability to p*** other posters off. In my case I find his claimed expertise of autism unsubtly followed by the use of ASD as a derogatory narrative for former Prime Ministers particularly offensive. I suspect others could name their poison.
It was indeed and it wasn't because of being offensive with him either, he just didn't like a genuine difference of opinion, politely stated and he took it personally.
Mr Meeks made his own decision and I respect and regret that, but it was his choice, and possibly for the best as he was taking things personally. Leon absolutely should not get the "blame" for that, he wasn't involved.
I recall the events. Although technically you are correct, I think the poster causing the offence appeared too thick skinned to understand the emotional hurt the narrative he was pursuing was creating. I have found in life, when in a hole, it is often best to stop digging. Just my tuppence worth.
Quite amazing to me there are so many Tory MPs too thick to realise the obvious. Namely, that excluding the weirdos, everyone wants to move on from the Brexit wars and no one wants to be reminded about covid for the rest of their lives.
It’s not fully his fault but Boris is the living embodiment of Brexit and Covid. Every time you see his face, your brain instinctively goes back to those two things. Ugh.
They are not the only politicians too thick to realise this of course. Ed Davey and Kier Starmer suffer from the same brain malfunction, with their campaign literature and public statements still variously dominated by “we opposed Brexit” and partygate.
Sod off the whole miserable lot of you. We all need to move on.
Thats already happened. The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Unfortunately for all of us, the only solutions anyone has come up with are either a further Brexit atop the Brexit, or to dilute the Brexit we have. Perhaps they are the only solutions that exist.
And as I just posted in response to Scott, those are the only solutions in town - a classic Euro fudge. The Good News is that the big part of that is already in place. We have ceded control of standards to the EU. We have unilaterally demolished customs checks on our side.
When you are both absolutely aligned and will remain so by default, it makes an agreement recognising this reality much easier than if both sides were sabre rattling beforehand. This government have given up their positions on customs and divergence. The only thing that matters is free movement and a fudge can be found there as well in exchange for "spiteful" EU nations like Spain abandoning the 3rd country restrictions on British economic migrants which we demanded.
I just heard Tobias Elwood saying that Brexit was costing us 4% of GDP a year and this was unsustainable. If this is now accepted then isn't it time one of the parties started facing the reality that either rejoining or joining one of the allied organisations is not just an option anymore its compulsory. It was said yesterday that the French and German growth figures are dwarfing ours. Is anyone adding 2+2 and making 4 yet?.
I don't think pointing at individual growth points is really valid. You'd need to look at manufacturing vs services, and also look at exports Vs trade within the EU-27.
There is a much larger discussion to be had about the UK's future economic direction.
But we have now wasted more than 6 years with all this Brexit nonsense when there were more pressing things to focus on.
History will not judge this period kindly
People continue to insist that Brexit is costing ever more absurd levels of GDP. It is plainly nonsense on several levels. Firstly, there are always far more significant effects on our economic performance. In the last couple of years we have had Covid, Ukraine, Russian sanctions and international disruption on trade from China. Identifying any underlying effect from something as trivial as Brexit in the face of all that noise is just impossible. Secondly, the noise is repeated in many other countries as well. So, any minor reduction in trade with the UK is dwarfed by the effect of economic sanctions with Russia for most EU countries. Demand in these countries has been significantly impacted, reducing the market for exports. Thirdly, as others have already pointed out, the UK is performing at least as well as the EU's major economies in highly distorted times. If the Brexit effects were anything like 4% GPD what they are saying is that we would be outgrowing these countries by absurd numbers.
But there is something in the distraction point. We are not addressing our underlying problems in productivity, investment, training and infrastructure. The potential wins in these areas again exceed any Brexit effect by an order of magnitude or more but they are rarely discussed. One of my many disappointments with this government is that levelling up, which could have started to address these problems, especially the last of them, has proved more of a soundbite than a policy.
This government has no clear purpose. It has no clear agenda. It has no focus on what can be done at the margins as we are buffeted by inflation, sanctions, Chinese disruption and many other factors. It is all about surviving the week. Not since the latter days of Gordon Brown have we had such chaos.
Roger is fundamentally clueless about economics.
"Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP every year". What even does this mean?? That without Brexit we'd be growing at 8% this year, much faster than China? Or that our GDP is shrinking 4% a year, so we are experiencing a devastating recession every year, which we clearly are not?
There should be a PB Threshold of Stupidity which, if you cross, you are suspended from PB for a week. I suggest Roger gets a 38 week ban
There is a difference between GDP and GDP Growth. Probably Roger is talking about the former and you the latter.
There is no way of interpreting Roger's remark without concluding it is witless
There you go again. You just can't help but going Ad Hominem, can you? With everyone.
Can't you just try and stop yourself? Your point about GDP may have been really valid but you chase people off this board, like Alastair Meekes, by being so flaming personally nasty all the time.
I didn't say Roger is witless. I said his remark is. And it is. There is no way Britain is "losing 4% of GDP every year because Brexit". So, no it was not "ad hominem"
Besides: what do you expect me to do? Ignore an obviously false statement out of politeness? Say "Well done Rog on your great insight", even though it is clearly and foolishly wrong?
If I say something as daft as that - and it hardly unknown - please feel free to call my remark witless. I won't complain, I will thank you for pointing out my egregious error
And I'm sure if you asked Mr Meeks why he left PB, his answer won't be "because people chased me off"
An economist writes: Actually Roger is absolutely right and you have misunderstood what he has said. Since I don't engage in ad hominem remarks I won't call you witless. GDP is a flow concept. It measures the amount of output (or equivalently spending or income, the three are theoretically equivalent) produced in a given economy over a given period of time. The statement that Brexit has cost us x% of GDP per year (I won't comment on whether x is 4 or some other number as estimates differ, but FWIW 4 seems reasonable and is in the ballpark of the BOE and OBR estimates) means that the level of GDP is 4% below what it would have been if we hadn't Brexited, every year or every quarter. It doesn't imply lower GDP growth for ever, simply a permanently lower level of GDP vs this counterfactual. I hope this helps.
lol. So we Brexited six years ago and we've lost (on average?) 4% GDP a year and our economy is now about 20% smaller than it was in 2016? Crumbs!
Or is this from 2020 when we actually Brexited so we've lost 4% and counting, except that of course Covid intervened in 2020 and we lost about 10% of the economy due to that, then regained it, and how anyone can perceive actual Brexit effects in the middle of a global plague and now a war, fuck knows
And of course Roger said we are "losing 4% of GDP a year". Which means - in normal, sane English - 4% every year. If I say I earn about £30k a year, I mean every year. Otherwise I would specifiy "THIS year"
Apart from that, your comment is mere sophistry. I will refrain from calling it witless, in case I upset @Heathener
Again I think you are misunderstanding how GDP works. Saying GDP is 4% lower every year than it would have been otherwise does not involve the economy shrinking by 4% every year. Since GDP is a measure of national income, the simplest analogy is with personal income. Imagine you lose your job and your new job pays 4% less than your old job. Every year you are earning 4% less than you would have been if you stayed in your old job. This doesn't mean that your pay is going down by 4% every year.
This is my last comment on this, as I have dildos to attend to, and chisels lying idle
Let's go back to Roger's original remark
"Brexit is costing us 4% GDP a year"
A year, in ordinary English, means "every year", as I have said. "I earn £20k a year." "I drink thirty gallons of wine a year". "I go abroad 200 times a year". It clearly means EVERY year, not THIS year, let alone THIS YEAR BUT NEVER AGAIN
There are, in that light, only two common sense interpretations of Roger's comment. The first is: Brexit is costing us 4% of Britain's total economic output, our GDP, which has shrunk 4% every year since Brexit, and will likely continue to do so. But that is nonsense, as we all know
The other more charitable interpretation is that by Brexiting we are losing 4% potential growth, an opportunity cost, every year - and that without Brexit GDP growth would be, say, annually 7% rather than its present ~3%. But again, that's bollocks, for multiple reasons (and how would we even know in the context of Covid and war?)
I conclude that Roger's remark was witless. But I am sure he is a lovely guy, and he is very good on movies, and tells some cracking anecdotes, when he is in the mood, so peace to all
Good day
I don't think you understand this stuff at all. Roger was referring to the level of GDP not the growth rate. Whether you agree that the number is 4% or not is a different question, but he expressed it completely clearly and accurately. Go back and read my explanations of this, and if that doesn't work go and read up on GDP somewhere else. And stop calling people witless when you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
I went back to the original quote that Roger sourced. Here it is. Tobias Ellwood, Tory MP
"Political distance from Brussels has been achieved. This is not up for question. However, economically speaking, there is vast room for improvement. The OBR calculates, in its current form, that Brexit is reducing our GDP by four per cent. This compares to around 1.5 per cent caused by Covid."
Gosh. No mention of "a year". No mention of this year next year any year. No arse-wobblingly stupid YEAR thing
Just "4%"
A bald total figure. He surely means total lost potential growth. He didn't say we are "losing 4% GDP a year" because that would be RIDIC. Roger misheard
ComRes had some interesting polling out on yesterday and the relevant stuff around it Broadly - 'still an asset to the Tories? 30 yes 60 no but improved from 24/64 in January 'More likely to vote Tory if he goes? 23 more likely 51 no difference 16 less likely
Doesnt suggest a big vote shift on the cards either way to me. Biggest impact will be certainty to vote when he goes. Also suggests position is as we see, single digit lead that regardless of what happens leader wise should swingback to within MoE even stevens and lead to a minority Labour government
All caveated by CoL and the response
The above us my attempt at dispassionate analysis. Angry me wants to say feck the fat lying betrayer and then fine the curry prick and turf him out
He’s there till the next GE at least. Only 4 points behind in latest polling scarily.
They couldn’t manufacture another VONC just to produce this same result, that would make them a laughing stock.
It’s purgatory. 😱
The upcoming by-elections will predicate something, I think.
The objective evidence so far, is that they will be in the "worse possible results" category.
Tbf if the Tories get 33% in Wakefield it would be a miracle given they are defending the seat of an outgoing rapist nonce they foisted last minute without due diligence. If i were tory central command id take 33% all day long
Minor point, but it’s not fair to describe the guy as a rapist. At least based on the case that he was prosecuted for.
He’s a nasty piece of work, but not a rapist.
Fair enough. There was evidence given in trial for unsolicited sex acts in Pakistan but lets just call him the outgoing sexual assaulter nonce
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
You can have two UK passports if you are a frequent traveller or need them for work reasons or to visit so-called 'incompatible' countries.
It doesn't, of course, help you get round the EU visa rules as entry and exit increasingly moves over to being recorded on a central database.
And if you're missing an exit stamp, that could be a problem whenever you tried to use that document again.
As long as the EU relies on old-fashioned stamps (why do they do this?!), then a 2nd passport allows you to evade the visa rules
I'm not encouraging it. But if they are stupid enough not to install e-gates everywhere, making life better for everyone, then pff
As I say, the problem will be solved by the free market (or e-gates). Countries that want British tourists and need the money will make it easy for us to go there. Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Portugal, probably Spain
The problem is that it's a mix, with the most common arrangement being both a physical stamp and a scan into a database. So the second passport really isn't going to help you that much, unless you travel forewarned as to which border crossings are keyed into the EU-wide database.
Why would you not be forewarned?
In the hypothetical situation posited by Leon - that you've already used up your legal time in the EU on a tourist visa (i.e. no visa) and want to enter 'illegally' using your blank duplicate passport, how would you know whether the checkpoint you're about to cross has a scanner or is simply going to do a visual check with a handstamp? It it's a visual check, you'll be waved through; if the passport goes into the scanner and it reports back your previous visits, you'll be denied entry.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
I found something similar to this with languages. For about a decade I used to work for a French company in Norway on a rotation and then, on occasion, teach at the headquarters of the company in Paris. Norway work was in Norwegian and English, and teaching was either teach in French and explain in English of teach in English and explain in French.
My problem I found was that when I first arrived in either Paris or Norway after an extended period in the other country my brain had trouble adjusting to the change. English was fine but, for the first few days after arriving Paris, if someone spoke to me in French my brain would say 'ah, foreign language' and would default to Norwegian and I would answer in that language. The same for the first few days back in Norway, I would automatically default to French.
The effect never wore off even after a decade. It seems my brain can handle English and one other language but goes into meltdown when a second new language is introduced.
I suspect the answer is that when you learn something closely related to another that is already instinctive, the brain starts off by 'building out' or 'copying over' from the skills you already have and - like in that bike experiment - the last stage is the breaking of links between two similar but separate tasks, and to reach that stage requires a lot of practice. Until you reach that point there is some sharing of connections that means you risk confusing the two or find it harder to switch. Thus in your case the same connections were being used for both foreign languages, with the most recently used dominating the connections.
Certainly using Leon's example, I can relate to the early days of driving on the right where it was all too easy to forget and set off on the wrong side, or get a complicated junction wrong. And, later when I was more experienced abroad, still making the occasional reverse mistake at home in the days after returning.
Now, I can switch between one and the other without any difficulty of mishap, and the only time I even notice when away is if I run into some particularly fiendish road layout which needs working out from scratch - basically the same as if you encountered similar at home.
Telling someone it's 'easy', when you can already do it, isn't particularly helpful, any more than telling someone that since you learned piano, they can too.
You last sentence, of course, is why very talented sports stars rarely make good coaches. It's come easily to them, and they Jost don't 'understand' why it's so difficult for others.
Graham Gooch, in cricket, is a prime example.
I once read about a County bringing in Ian Botham to look at a young batting prospect woefully out of form. He watched for half an hour. Then solemnly remarked. "The problem is you're not timing it."
For those interested in Ukraine, here's the announcement on UK multiple-launch rockets. Ukrainian troops will be trained in the UK. We are definitely invested in this.
The problem I see with this very expensive kit is that the battle for the Donbas is being decided now. It is going to arrive too late. Also the provision of such expensive systems without adequate air defence will make them the highest priority targets for the Russian airforce.
It was obvious to a complete amateur like me over a month ago that the current battles were going to be won by Russian artillary unless something was done to counterbalance that. This is what has happened and I fear that Ukranian casualties in May and early June will have been horrendous. We really need to move faster, welcome though this is.
It looks to me that we're firmly in the Breakthrough Defeated quadrant - Russian military is unable to co-ordinate an integrated attack in time and space leading to piecemeal attacks unsupported by combat enablers. Any gains come at a high price in troops and material. Success is tactical at best; campaign ends in numerous operational setbacks and strategic defeat.
Yes Russia is winning right now. And has been for over a month. The Ukranians are showing incredible courage but their best trained troops are being chewed to pieces by intense artillary bombardments that leave the recipients wounded, concussed, deafened and disorientated. It's brutal and they very largely cannot fight back until the Russians try to take the cities.
Have the Russians achieved what they wanted to achieve in this time? Of course not. Have their casualties been beyond their worst nightmares? Certainly. Have they shown that the Russian bear was in fact sclerotic, sick, starved by corruption and poorly trained? Undoubtedly. But to pretend that they are not winning is delusional. The Ukranians themselves are saying as much. They need heavy artillary and they needed it a month ago. They are hanging on until it comes. I hope it is not too late.
Turning this into artillery war is to give the Russians home court advantage - they are the counter-battery kings.
Although I accept that the Ukrainians probably don't have a better option at this point.
That's really not what the evidence suggests. They are certainly the battery kings, if only in numbers, but they appear to be comprehensively outfought in terms of success in destroying the other side's guns.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
Yep - I do. I understand that while the UK needs the EU more than they need us, EU member states would still like better access to the UK market than they get currently and that, generally, the EU is made stronger by having a smooth, trust-based relationship with the UK.
You do this stuff for a living, and you’re not prone to lying fantasies, so I am happy to take it on trust. I sincerely hope you are right
If Starmer can fix some of this shit it would be great. I have long thought it would be a Remainer that might make Brexit work, as so many Brexiteers are ideologically wedded to a Platonic ideal of Brexit, and the more pragmatic Leavers - eg Hannan - have generally left the scene
And we agree that none of this can happen until Boris goes. He REALLY needs to go.
A rare moment of concord on PB
But you are wrong about remoaner ultras. They exist in numbers. @Scott_xP is far from alone in his dogmatism
I do not come across them except on here and on Twitter. I agree with them that leaving the EU was a mistake, but we have to move on from that. If they can't do it, they are going to be permanently disappointed. It is no way to lead a life.
You don't read the Guardian, then. The Labour Party's very own newspaper
From Polly Toynbee to Nick Cohen to Martin Kettle to dozens of others, they are all Rejoiners, they are merely staying reasonably quiet for now, so as not to scare the horses.
That will change as Starmer gets nearer to power. I expect the first Guardian editorial or lead columnist to suggest rejoining the SM within the year
We will rejoin at some point unless the EU blows up. Staying out will make us poorer, and people don't like being poor. And anti-EU sentiment is far stronger in the generation that will die in the next 20 years than among those who will still be alive and voting. Aligning ourselves with the SM is an intelligent first step in that process. Of course we will have people advocating that - a Tory MP no less already has. None of this will happen quickly though. Perhaps you will have exited to the great free holiday in the sky by the time it happens. Perhaps I will have, too.
Nah. The EU is heading in a direction we can never accept and the longer we are out the more those differences will become apparent.
What I do think will happen at some point is we will join EFTA and probably the EEA. But I would say that as it has always been the best result in my view.
The EU is not heading very clearly in any direction at all. It is as likely to blow up as to become a coherent single federal state in my opinion, and more likely to continue to muddle along as a collection of sovereign states who make some decisions collectively. It will probably see an increasing division between an inner, more integrated, core and the rest. The UK could easily find a berth in that outer ring in ten or twenty years - a wasteful and damaging journey back to where we would have been anyway.
Why bother and suffer all the inevitable pain of the political and social problems associated with the EU when the trading partner route lies with EFTA and the EEA. If we will end up anywhere closer to the EU it is there. As long as EFTA exists it will always be viewed as preferable to full EU membership.
I am not bothered either way TBH but being a rule taker not a rule maker isn't without frustrations of its own (especially as the UK was pretty influential in writing the rules when it was an EU member).
Wrong in both instances. The 'rule taker' idea is simply a myth that was propagated by EU supporters who were worried that EFTA membership was seen as a viable alternative.
And given that so much of the decision making inside the EU is now by QMV the idea that we were influential in that is also a very dubious assertion.
Not really true Richard. QMV was inevitable after the expansion east which was largely driven by the UK in the face of French scepticism. Additionally the adoption of what were once seen as Anglo-Saxon attitudes on deregulation of state industries in Europe would not have happened without British membership. The Europeans were hugely influenced by Thatcherite economics even though they, and the Brexiteers would never want to admit it.
QMV was not inevitable, just needed for the EU to be able to make decisions easier, but that easier level of decision making means able to make more decisions without us.
Harder, but unanimous decision making could have remained an option which would entail the EU doing less but concentrating on doing what it does do right. That was an option, and it was what I and many other erstwhile pro-Europeans wanted it to be doing, provide only the higher level lower-common denominator framework but leave the day to day decisions to the elected governments of nation states.
Lisbon rejected the latter option, and Cameron's failed reforms failed to bring it back. That is why many of us former pro-Europeans switched in the end to Leave.
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
I found something similar to this with languages. For about a decade I used to work for a French company in Norway on a rotation and then, on occasion, teach at the headquarters of the company in Paris. Norway work was in Norwegian and English, and teaching was either teach in French and explain in English of teach in English and explain in French.
My problem I found was that when I first arrived in either Paris or Norway after an extended period in the other country my brain had trouble adjusting to the change. English was fine but, for the first few days after arriving Paris, if someone spoke to me in French my brain would say 'ah, foreign language' and would default to Norwegian and I would answer in that language. The same for the first few days back in Norway, I would automatically default to French.
The effect never wore off even after a decade. It seems my brain can handle English and one other language but goes into meltdown when a second new language is introduced.
High-level skills can quickly deteriorate when not used.
I once lived in Spain for six months, and on returning home through France realised I’d forgotten even basic French.
I’ve not flown a plane for a decade, there’s very good reasons that the next time I do, it will be several flights with an instructor before being allowed to go up solo.
Left and right handed cars though, no problem at all, even with manual gearboxes. Some skills eventually become so ingrained they get stored in the long term memory.
I have heard it said that one of the most perishable skills is landing a conventional aircraft on a carrier. That even after a few weeks off, refresher training is required.
Scuba diving needs constant refreshment
I do it sporadically (I wish I did it more) and almost every time I do, I need an hour or two of basic tuition, at first
Scuba diving is a great example, get it wrong and it kills you. Here’s a video of Adam Savage from the Mythbusters show, talking about the closest he ever came to getting himself killed in a decade of doing silly stunts for the programme. It involved escaping from an underwater car, and trying to remain calm enough to remember the training in a life-or-death scenario https://youtube.com/watch?v=v-eK_cpTsOw
The only mention we get of Brexit now is the need to make it work. Hard to ignore the thing when it is directly impacting people via its role in the CoL crisis. So its about solutions, not trying to replay the war.
Brexit can never work. That is why the misery continues
People like are the reason Brexit will continue to vex us. You cannot and will not accept Brexit. You are emotionally incapable of accepting it, that’s like expecting a 16th century Catholic to accept the Reformation. You would rejoin tomorrow, and rejoin is your aim
There are a lot of people like you in politics, especially (but not exclusively) on the Left. As and when Labour gain power they will make their move. Starmer will come under pressure to yield to their desires, in some form (Single Market access to start with). Brexit will therefore vex us for many years to come
If Starmer does make it to Downing Street, the current government's absolutely abysmal handling of Brexit means that there are likely to be a number of quick wins he can secure that will probably make a lot of the day to day stuff vexing people, such as long passport queues and long customs delays, go away.
How can Starmer secure wins on passport queues? We still let EU citizens use e-gates when they arrive in the UK - something the EU does not allow “Third Country” citizens do - so we don’t have any “concessions” to offer them - unless we withdraw EU citizens access.
Look at how countries secure wins inside the EU. They do not do it by trading on a like for like basis. They do it by trading what they can offer in return for what they want.
What do you suggest Starmer trade to improve EU tourism business?
Who knows? But the idea that the UK has nothing to offer seems a little far-fetched to me.
So you think Starmer can get easy wins….. but you actually have no clue what they are and how he will get them. Er, OK
There is a saying about not criticizing unless you have a better idea and guess what that is bollocks. Any decent team has what is known as an evaluator type person. They look for problems not solutions. It is a different skill. My wife who was in drug safety did just that role. Others with different skills would loo for the solutions.
It is entirely rational to point out what you are doing is not working and a different approach would be better.
So, the Leavers were right to say "the EU is shit and we will do better if we Leave", without going into detail?
lol
No. Try reading the post. An evaluator points out the problems. They don't just make them up. You clearly have no concept of project management. It is a proper role to identify real problems without having to identify solutions. It is not a proper role to say something doesn't work without evidence.
I can't believe you can't see that.
So if my wife spotted that a drug might kill, she didn't have to have a solution. However she didn't randomly say a drug might kill, she provided evidence.
Really it is depressing you can't see this.
But this is politics. Not project management. That's my point
The Leavers were allowed to get away with scant attention to detail of how Brexit would work and what it would look like - and people rightly criticized it. But in the same vein, @SouthamObserver can't airily say Oh Keir Starmer could solve this, this and this problem with Brexit, not without giving us hard practical examples of how and when Starmer would fix these glitches
You see every problem through the lens of your job (or your wife's job?). You have a deformation professionelle, as the French say
"Déformation professionnelle (French: [defɔʁmasjɔ̃ pʁɔfɛsjɔnɛl], professional deformation or job conditioning) is a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession or special expertise, rather than from a broader perspective."
Basic project management applies across the board and actually I posted from my experience and training, but thought my wife's example was better than any I could give, but my simple point was that it is wrong to assume that you have to have a solution when identifying a problem. You do obviously then need a solution so any team made up of representatives from one project management skill is useless. In our house we are both evaluator types which leads to not making mistakes, but nothing getting done. There is nothing wrong with occasionally making mistakes. On the other side there are people like yourself which is just to say let's do it without any consideration of the how or the disasters you get yourself into because nobody is standing there going 'just hang on a minute' eg inventing a plane without wheels to land on, or a car without brakes.
But this isn't so. Retract
I am one of the few Leavers on here who was explicit from the start that Leaving would bring significant problems and economic pain, for quite a while. I was scathing about the Leavers who promised "the best deal ever in 3 minutes"; Laaving was obviously going to HURT
I didn't mean about the leaving the EU in general. I agree you said it would cause pain in the short term. I mean your outlook in general.
Just look at all your posts this morning. Everything thing is easy, just get over it, not a problem. Well for most people it isn't.
You have two passports (how?), you are single, you don't have an existing property abroad, you don't have a pet to travel with, you haven't been caught out accidently by the 90 day rule because your return trip wasn't recorded.
Lots of this stuff can't be solved by the average person here. For all of them they are stuffed by these changes. Lots of people worry more than you do about travel. They don't have your experience of travel.
Some truth in that, I guess
I was shocked by the PB-er who said "he's scared of driving on the right". To me that seems pathetically lame, but then I have spent a lifetime travelling, often to very remote places, so almost nothing phases me, travel-wise. But I am unusual, as you say. I actually get frustrated with more timorous friends and relations who say they want to travel but then quail at the "potential problems". To them "going to Tbilisi" seems impossibly difficult but it really isn't. It's easier than most places. Zero visa issues, you can stay a year, everything is cheap, the young speak English, the food is good the wine is ace and the sun shines reliably from May-October. Do it!
As for your other points, hmm. If you get a pet, or buy a 2nd home in the Algarve, or get married, you are making a conscious choice to make your life more rooted, and travel more tricky. You get great rewards, but you won't be able to zip around the world. I have chosen to be untramelled, and it does mean I am blissfully free to bugger off to anywhere that will let me in, but it also comes at a cost, it can be lonely, for a start (tho you make friends as you go, I have a new Mingrelian friend here in Tbilisi).
We all make these choices. We all have the freedom to choose
The brain re-wires itself when you learn a new task, such as driving on the right, and after a while anyone who has done it regularly will have neural connections separately for the tasks of left-side and right-side driving, such that with enough practice they can switch from one to the other without difficulty or confusion - essentially the brain has made them into separate 'jobs'.
Starting out, however, you don't have those neural connections and the activity is daunting and not without risk, since you're having to think everything out from scratch. Hence Anne Sacoolas.
There was a fascinating experiment where they made a bike where the front wheel turned in the opposite direction from the way the handlebars were turned. To begin with, the subject found it impossible to ride, and it took a fair bit of practice before he was able to ride it, and even then, as soon as he encountered a novel situation his instinctive reactions kicked in and he fell off the bike. Eventually after hours of practice the motor skills began to be 'learned' and brain scans showed the areas of the brain being dedicated to the new task.
Interestingly some confusion between the new task and the old persisted, such that when the subject went back to riding a normal bike, he made new mistakes. It took longer for the two tasks to become separately instinctive.
p.s. my dog says he's been to twelve countries including 20 US states, and he's just four. Pets can travel!
The bikes thing is interesting. In our metalwork classes in school the teacher made weird bikes. Ones where the wheels turned in a different direct to the wheel, one where you went backwards when peddling, a double decker bike, etc.
It was an interesting experiment because the subject had brain scans while he was doing it, and it revealed the extent of the re-wiring and rededication of brain 'space' that goes on when we learn something new. For me - as with Leon - it 'clicked' as an explanation for the various stages I've gone through when driving on the right. I've just been seven weeks in Europe and am now back and I can honestly say I made no mistakes nor had to think about it at all (except once on a petrol forecourt when I had to think about how best to navigate past the other moving traffic) - the point does arrive when it just comes naturally.
For a newbie, of course, they have the choice between avoidance - deciding it's not worth the effort or risk - or jumping in and learning through practice. There are various tricks - in the early days I used to keep a loop of string tied round the right side of the steering wheel as a reminder - but there is always the risk of a beginner getting it wrong, as Ms Sacoolas discovered with sadly tragic consequences.
It always takes me a few minutes, but then I am ok. I can forget at a junction on an empty road which of course is dangerous and sometimes have to think at roundabouts.
Re my bike post I meant handlebars turned in opposite direction to wheel.
155 flights cancelled from British airports today. I'm sure Carlotta will be along to say it's better than every other country in the world but I'm not sure that will satisfy anyone.
It's F*cking Brexit! And it's about time the Labour Party started showing some leadership or Starmer should go and leave it to someone with some bottle
Outside of trans rights or abolishing the monarchy, maybe the worst thing Starmer could do is talk about Brexit. It's a trap. He needs to focus on issues that unite actual and potential labour voters (cost of living crisis, Johnson broke all the rules and is a crook).
Really, just the cost of living. I need to see from SKS some actual policies that will make my life better in the next parliament. I wasn't able to see his statement yesterday and I can't find a transcript now, but my understanding is hwe said Labout have a plan. Great. Bully for you. What is it?
I sympathise - it is quite difficult to find out what Labour's plan is, for some reason newspapers and journalists don't seem to want to write it out neatly or talk about it, and Labour's website isn't very clear either. What I have discovered from google:
1. Windfall tax on energy companies to give houses relief on energy bills. 2. Scrapping national insurance rise 3. Discount on business rates for SMEs 4. Rapid ramp-up of installing insulation into homes 5. Investigation by National Crime Agency into taxpayer money lost through fraud
And then from previous speech on universal credit: 6. Increase universal credit/keep pandemic uplift. 7. Reform to reduce universal credit taper rate/reduce marginal tax for those on low incomes 8. Increasing national minimum wage to £10/hour 9. Sick pay for all, right to flexible working, protection against unfair dismissal
The dreariest manifesto in history. My god. Starmer encapsulated in 9 bullet points
Targetting the key Insulate Britain/business rate tinkerer coalition of voters
If that really is going to be the Labour offering, they could still lose, even to Boris
But they must have some more interesting eyecatching stuff they are hiding. Surely. Surely
*head::Georgian table*
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with the "we can't tell you our policies in case the Tories implement them" argument. So what if they do? If they do and they work, that'll make me look more favourably on the other policies which I'm sceptical about.
I agree. I think the reason they don't is because (a) they don't really have many and (b) are worried that they will fall apart under any sort of sustained scrutiny. So they want to keep them under wraps until the last possible moment.
I find that dishonest in its own way. I would have much more confidence in a Labour government if it showed evidence of really thinking through its programme for government and had the confidence to put it before us so that we can really see and scrutinise for ourselves what they propose. Not spring it on us 3 weeks before the GE.
All PBers would agree about maximum policy transparency. They are untypical.
Contemplate: Inflation, war, Brexit, debt, deficit, interest rates, productivity, NHS, tax levels, skills gap, the pension industry, housing, energy policy, climate change, net zero to name a few.
The actuality of an outline workable, costed, plan about all these for, say, 10 years would look apocalyptic to almost everyone unless it hid and evaded all sorts of realities. There would be no possibility of winning an honest election when that was set against a populist programme for the next three months of retail special offers from the other party.
Comments
Then we realise the joke is on us
The relatively recent understanding is that the brain starts re-dedicating space and connections from dormant activities to new tasks much quicker than was thought. If you put on a blindfold, within a very short time - days and perhaps even hours - your brain will start prioritising the other senses at the expense of your eyesight. There's a theory that this is the real purpose of dreams - to keep the visual parts of your brain active, and hence prioritised, even when you are asleep.
Pillocks.
You have made this accusation twice now against @Leon. It is unjustified and you really owe him an apology.
When I have driven on the continent or the US I have found it perfectly ok but much, much more tiring than it is at home. This is simply because I can no longer trust my automatic instincts and can, if I am not careful, find myself on the wrong side of the road after turning at a junction, for example. So I actually have to pay attention and that increases the risk that I miss something important.
I do it sporadically (I wish I did it more) and almost every time I do, I need an hour or two of basic tuition, at first
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
23m
The lack of any ambition - any ambition at all, let alone any urgency - to see interest rates normalise to levels consistent with healthy medium-term economic growth is quite remarkable & has been a (perhaps the) major policy failure of the past decade.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1534105527864725507
The objective evidence so far, is that they will be in the "worse possible results" category.
Yet nobody polls the Red Wall regularly.
Maybe we should take up the challenge?
If we have 25,000 followers by Friday, we’ll start a fortnightly Red Wall TRACKER
Follow us @RedfieldWilton
Let’s do it!
Id see a doctor if i had some stuff on my penis tbf. Or rather i'd try but not get past the reception revolutionary guards.
When I was learning to fly an aircraft, landing is the most difficult bit, and I naively thought that reading lots of books about how to land an aircraft would help. Which of course they didn't, simply giving me more to think about when doing it and slowing my brain down even more. The instructor was insistent I forget the books and we simply go round and round doing it, and although I never got enough hours in to become instinctive, he was right that the brain learns physical tasks by doing and repetition, not by thinking.
I’m so sorry Marq, and all Marq posters 😕 the coming months are going to be hell. But for Horse Battery and all the PB horse battery’s this situation is shit and giggles 🫤
Graham Gooch, in cricket, is a prime example.
If something goes wrong, even quite expert people can die.
I remember the guys in the dive shop being startled that I wanted the spare regulator to be the same quality as the main. Apparently nearly everyone these days buys a cheap piece of shit for that.
If it is obvious that another person of the governing party might command the confidence of the house they would be given time by HM to test it out; ditto if another leader could cobble a coalition.
The backstop is a GE. Though in most circumstances you would reach the backstop fast. During a GE whoever is the government when the music stops (moment of dissolution) is still the government until it isn't.
Not having a government at all is what Johnny Foreigner does.
During this the palace consults with the PM and with cab sec and HM is advised by them.
Does HM ever have to make a personal choice between possibilities? That is a secret. I think the answer must be that it could happen.
Imagine you stay loyal to your own job that is giving 2% pay rises, rather than joining a competitor that is offering the same initial wage (the same starting point) but 2.5% annual pay rises. After just a few years, the discrepancy compound grows to a significant amount.
Again that's the theory, the evidence to say that has happened on the other hand is lacking to say the least.
But apparently this attitude is laughable (despite the person expressing this view saying that it took him a decade to become comfortable with it)...
Re the first para I fully agree, but as you accept all people are different and have different hang ups which aren't rational, but we aren't rational beings and I reckon if the travel a lot you get less fazed. To give you an example I suffer from anxiety (like many) but only in a very specific and unusual form, mainly to do with taking on campaigns, which I do a lot of. I have none of the normal anxieties and for instance I can present to 100 people without any problem. I once attended a seminar of people with anxieties and the people all had to say what they suffered from. As it went around the group I was thinking 'I shouldn't be here, you are all a bunch of loonies', except when I spoke they all looked at me as if to say 'What the hell is wrong with you? Why take on these campaigns'
I guess in a nut shell most of us are a bit nutty. Those that aren't are a bit boring. You are definitely not boring
If i were tory central command id take 33% all day long
Driving is now so automatic and sub-routinised for me I can almost watch TV as I do it (I don't, but I will do lots of other things)
Driving in America I find easier than anywhere else, because cities (certainly west of Chicago) are entirely designed around driving and making driving and parking nicer, right down to the "turn right on red lights" rule. Sadly this also makes most of these cities painfully ugly in places
But anyway yes this just reinforces the point. I've driven in America a lot so it is now reflexive and easy. It's all about doing the hours of practice, in almost any endeavour
Its a terrible policy, but that didn't prevent the Tories from implementing it nor Labour claiming credit when they did.
If they did that more often, the Government would look even more rudderless and Labour would look like they have all the ideas and are the Government-in-waiting.
Personally the list is sensible but insufficient.
Some more detail on energy policy:
1. Invest £6n a year on retrofitting houses
2. Reverse 7 year moratorium on onshore wind
3. Double offshore wind targets
4. Press on with all forms of renewable energy (that's not really a policy difference tbh)
5. End the delay on new nuclear plants -> must admit I didn't know Labour was particularly keen on nuclear...
https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/miliband-sets-out-labours-national-insulation-mission
I reckon I'm a better driver now though as a result, very aware of other cars, blind spots, whether people have seen me, pedestrians stepping out etc
Certainly, at heavy cost, Russia has advanced a few miles in Luhansk but then Ukraine has advanced a few miles in Kharkiv and Kherson.
Do any of these tactical advances matter ? I doubt it.
How the strategic situation develops over the upcoming months is far more important.
Nonetheless Leon does have an uncanny ability to p*** other posters off. In my case I find his claimed expertise of autism unsubtly followed by the use of ASD as a derogatory narrative for former Prime Ministers particularly offensive. I suspect others could name their poison.
If the PM just ignores it all, HMQ must force a solution by either dismissal or dissolution on behalf of the representatives of her subjects.
Harder, but unanimous decision making could have remained an option which would entail the EU doing less but concentrating on doing what it does do right. That was an option, and it was what I and many other erstwhile pro-Europeans wanted it to be doing, provide only the higher level lower-common denominator framework but leave the day to day decisions to the elected governments of nation states.
Lisbon rejected the latter option, and Cameron's failed reforms failed to bring it back. That is why many of us former pro-Europeans switched in the end to Leave.
With energy policiy, it doesn't much matter either way, as both parties are fully committed to the hard net zero target.
Back in the days of the Space Shuttle, the pilots would be flying in the training aircraft, and the mission specialists would be in the spacewalk tank, for weeks on end, and up until the last possible moment before launch.
Local flying clubs have charts like this on their walls, reminding pilots, especially those with less overall experience, that they are not as ‘current’ as they think they are.
https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/04/1430312045_currency-barometer.gif
I find that dishonest in its own way. I would have much more confidence in a Labour government if it showed evidence of really thinking through its programme for government and had the confidence to put it before us so that we can really see and scrutinise for ourselves what they propose. Not spring it on us 3 weeks before the GE.
Let's go back to Roger's original remark
"Brexit is costing us 4% GDP a year"
A year, in ordinary English, means "every year", as I have said. "I earn £20k a year." "I drink thirty gallons of wine a year". "I go abroad 200 times a year". It clearly means EVERY year, not THIS year, let alone THIS YEAR BUT NEVER AGAIN
There are, in that light, only two common sense interpretations of Roger's comment. The first is: Brexit is costing us 4% of Britain's total economic output, our GDP, which has shrunk 4% every year since Brexit, and will likely continue to do so. But that is nonsense, as we all know
The other more charitable interpretation is that by Brexiting we are losing 4% potential growth, an opportunity cost, every year - and that without Brexit GDP growth would be, say, annually 7% rather than its present ~3%. But again, that's bollocks, for multiple reasons (and how would we even know in the context of Covid and war?)
I conclude that Roger's remark was witless. But I am sure he is a lovely guy, and he is very good on movies, and tells some cracking anecdotes, when he is in the mood, so peace to all
Good day
I was excited at thought of a solid dildo or double dildo that could also be a fantastic saucy ornament for the bedroom 🤦♀️
He’s a nasty piece of work, but not a rapist.
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/cancelled/today
And what’s the source for “150”?
And of course the other annoying thing is it costs more to take your bloody dog to France than it costs to take yourself.
According to him, they programmed it with the various aerodynamic coefficients etc for the actual Shuttle. It was an early example of a flight simulator based on actual physics.
No one in the team could land it - crashed every time.
A bit worried, after some checking of their work, they asked someone from the astronaut office to come and try it.
The astronaut did a bunch of landings, apparently quite easily. He thanked them for the quality of the work....
Tax rates are the highest they have ever been so Labour can't really talk about increasing rates.
The minimum wage has increased significantly with most places now paying £10 plus per hour for unskilled work so not really scope to say they would increase that.
Government spending is off the charts at the moment so they can't really say they will increase that.
Universal Credit is pretty generous so I doubt they would commit to increasing it as it will be a disincentive to work.
Thats why Labour are pretty quiet on any different polcies as their normal policies of the last 30 years are currently being implemented.
The F-14 was extremely difficult and we had to re-qualify before EVERY cruise. So that was 2 x touch and go, 6 x day landing and 4 x night landing in 24 hours. Bad weather? Rough seas? Been saddled with an F-14A that has the throttle response of a Briggs & Stratton lawnmower.Tough shit, do it anyway. Can't do it? Tough shit, enjoy your C-130 career.
Let us say you are "earning £20k a year" as an example. 4% of that is £800. If you permanently lower your earnings to £19,200 then yes that has cost you 4% a year. You lose the £800 this year, but you also lose the £800 next year and the year after that too.
In theory Roger is right and you are wrong, in theory, and you know I'm not a Remoaner saying that, but that is the economics and I feel I must correct you on this.
For the avoidance of doubt I think Roger is wrong in practice, because the evidence is lacking. The UK grew more than the Eurozone in the decade pre-pandemic "despite Brexit" so it is hubristic and arrogant to assume we would have had an additional 4% growth beyond them on top of that. But it wouldn't be the first time Roger is hubristic and arrogant, there is nothing wrong with the claim in theory or saying "a year".
But they're going to lose a large chunk of soft remain fiscally centre right voters that Cameron picked up and kept through the Corbyn era if he stays. Its insoluble, at least in time for the next GE.
The worming certificate is easy - some people just call at vets and have it done there and then; I like to have an appointment lined up. You have five days (so for a weekend break can actually have it done in the UK before you leave) and it typically costs between €15-€25. Nearer Calais, for some mysterious reason, many vets are charging €50 or more, hence it is cheaper to get it done further away. Last October in Freiburg it cost me €11 and last month in Bergamo €20.
Getting a PP was easy, and is gradually becoming more difficult. In France and Belgium it's already exceptionally difficult, in Italy it can be done but the bureaucracy you have to jump through is worse, in Spain and Germany it's still possible if you hunt around - but one feels the door is slowly being closed. Whether they get as far as trying to 'disqualify' those already issued to travelling Brits is another matter. If you have a foreign address, long-stay visa or residency it is much easier.
Yes, some poor souls were in the situation that their benefits would be withdrawn *faster* than their income from wages increased. Go to work, have less money.
Mr Meeks made his own decision and I respect and regret that, but it was his choice, and possibly for the best as he was taking things personally. Leon absolutely should not get the "blame" for that, he wasn't involved.
My wife has done it a couple of times years ago on holiday, and while generally OK she tended to keep the speed right down and we had a couple of anxious moments. I don't think she'd want to do it again.
I know exactly what you are saying but no one uses GDP in this abstruse sense when they talk about "losing x% GDP a year"
Here is a list of UK recessions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom
See the column Reductions in Real GDP. The GFC cost us 7%. In total. That's how GDP loss is measured
OR you can use it as meaning: lost potential growth, which the Treasury tried to do when they predicted the outcome of Brexit
"UK would lose £130bn in growth if Brexit deal passed, figures suggest
Estimates published by the government last year show an agreement similar to Boris Johnson’s settlement, which envisions striking a limited free trade deal with the EU, would strip 6.7% from the UK’s expected path of GDP growth between now and 2034"
That's 6.7% OVER 15 YEARS, not 6.7% a year every year
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/17/uk-lost-gdp-growth-brexit-deal-passed-official-estimates
All else is sophistry
I have helped a friend claim UC and thats what it says on her award.
Its also when I discovered just how generous UC is.
The fact you don't believe it says more about you than it does about me.
Douce auto corrected to douche, good job I checked before posting.
What you are referring to is europhilia Ken Clark still in Lady Thatchers cabinet to make that revolt happen! This is sooooo different with all useless cheerleaders around Boris as the supposed big beasts today. That ain’t happening doofy. 😕 Boris and his cabinet are tough it out, don’t walk when out types, it’s the modern way.
I think why we are governed more poorly without vintage type politics of integrity, honour, and strong cabinets tbh.
Changing rules for another vonc ain’t happening either just to produce the same result. That would if anything strengthen Boris and make 1922 laughing stock, so they need to be very careful about manufacturing the next VONC they can’t keep throwing spaghetti at wall voncs getting nowhere.
We have to accept he’s in till the next election where he gets chance to defend his eighty seat majority. 😩😩😩😩😩
That sounds less stupid if you don't say it out loud.
I think the drag is more than that, but that's the idea. I also saw some figures from the Bank of England that annual business investment is suppressed by 25% because of Brexit.
https://twitter.com/nj_timothy/status/1534117207373975556
For a newbie, of course, they have the choice between avoidance - deciding it's not worth the effort or risk - or jumping in and learning through practice. There are various tricks - in the early days I used to keep a loop of string tied round the right side of the steering wheel as a reminder - but there is always the risk of a beginner getting it wrong, as Ms Sacoolas discovered with sadly tragic consequences.
Perhaps it needs writing down then?
There's far too much bumbling amateurism and relying on personal honour about.
To be honest I have no idea how it works with 2 passports, but if you do have a hiccup with the electronic system (and with your level of travel you might) and you have an incomplete passport (because you have 2) you might find yourself back on the plane to the UK tout sweet.
What seems to happen though is:
Labour's policy is tested vs idealized perfect individual policy, inevitably falls short on some particular metric... and then, *in a process I don't fully understand* people decide to vote Tory or stay at home.
"Political distance from Brussels has been achieved. This is not up for question. However, economically speaking, there is vast room for improvement. The OBR calculates, in its current form, that Brexit is reducing our GDP by four per cent. This compares to around 1.5 per cent caused by Covid."
https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/we-can-upgrade-brexit-and-ease-the-cost-of-living-by-going-back-to-the-single-market
Gosh. No mention of "a year". No mention of this year next year any year. No arse-wobblingly stupid YEAR thing
Just "4%"
A bald total figure. He surely means total lost potential growth. He didn't say we are "losing 4% GDP a year" because that would be RIDIC. Roger misheard
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1534115000888999936
Then solemnly remarked. "The problem is you're not timing it."
They are certainly the battery kings, if only in numbers, but they appear to be comprehensively outfought in terms of success in destroying the other side's guns.
Here’s a video of Adam Savage from the Mythbusters show, talking about the closest he ever came to getting himself killed in a decade of doing silly stunts for the programme. It involved escaping from an underwater car, and trying to remain calm enough to remember the training in a life-or-death scenario https://youtube.com/watch?v=v-eK_cpTsOw
Video of the incident in question: https://youtube.com/watch?v=q3_HEKMgqbE
Re my bike post I meant handlebars turned in opposite direction to wheel.
Contemplate: Inflation, war, Brexit, debt, deficit, interest rates, productivity, NHS, tax levels, skills gap, the pension industry, housing, energy policy, climate change, net zero to name a few.
The actuality of an outline workable, costed, plan about all these for, say, 10 years would look apocalyptic to almost everyone unless it hid and evaded all sorts of realities. There would be no possibility of winning an honest election when that was set against a populist programme for the next three months of retail special offers from the other party.