The other thing that is going on is that the government are now hell bent on totally destroying the property development industry. They have gone full on NIMBY, to try and save their electoral fortunes.
Two things to watch in the 'LURB' bill.
A government amendment for 'street votes'. So basically, instead of having the Council take a planning decision, it is decided instead by way of a referendum by people in the local area. So all the objectors can basically unite to vote down any proposal for development. The planning system gets replaced by direct democracy. This is actually likely to happen, it is going to probably become law.
Secondly, 46 tory backbenchers have backed an amendment that takes away housing targets, so Councils are under no actual obligation to build new housing. Something like this will happen given the level of support it has.
This is all absolutely psychotically stupid and insane. It is actually going to end the property development industry and all the jobs and economic growth it creates.
Would likely boost the Tories in the home counties and help them see off the threat from the LDs and Residents' Associations.
However removing major planning decisions from local authorities to direct referendum is probably going too far and would lead to most development projects and local plans being voted down
The second one won't get Labour support IMO so has little chance of passing. The first is a bit of bizarre populism. Is there a link to how it would work? If Mr Bloggs down the road wants a conservatory, do I get to vote on it? How close do I have to be that get a say? etc. Moreover, planning is not jjust an instinctive "Do I like the sound of that?" thing - it's a complex business requiring consideration of roads and other infrastructure as well as the impact on the surrounding area. I loathe endless debates about the precise angle of roofs and size of windows, and have stayed off the planning committees ever since I was elected to the council, but even I'd admit that someone with an eye for detail needs to grapple with the issue. It doesn't seem suitable for a yes/no vote on what folk down the road think.
The other thing that is going on is that the government are now hell bent on totally destroying the property development industry. They have gone full on NIMBY, to try and save their electoral fortunes.
Two things to watch in the 'LURB' bill.
A government amendment for 'street votes'. So basically, instead of having the Council take a planning decision, it is decided instead by way of a referendum by people in the local area. So all the objectors can basically unite to vote down any proposal for development. The planning system gets replaced by direct democracy. This is actually likely to happen, it is going to probably become law.
Secondly, 46 tory backbenchers have backed an amendment that takes away housing targets, so Councils are under no actual obligation to build new housing. Something like this will happen given the level of support it has.
This is all absolutely psychotically stupid and insane. It is actually going to end the property development industry and all the jobs and economic growth it creates.
Would likely boost the Tories in the home counties and help them see off the threat from the LDs and Residents' Associations.
However removing major planning decisions from local authorities to direct referendum is probably going too far and would lead to most development projects and local plans being voted down
The second one won't get Labour support IMO so has little chance of passing. The first is a bit of bizarre populism. Is there a link to how it would work? If Mr Bloggs down the road wants a conservatory, do I get to vote on it? How close do I have to be that get a say? etc. Moreover, planning is not jjust an instinctive "Do I like the sound of that?" thing - it's a complex business requiring consideration of roads and other infrastructure as well as the impact on the surrounding area. I loathe endless debates about the precise angle of roofs and size of windows, and have stayed off the planning committees ever since I was elected to the council, but even I'd admit that someone with an eye for detail needs to grapple with the issue. It doesn't seem suitable for a yes/no vote on what folk down the road think.
I spent a total of 28 years on three different planning committees. The one common standard advice was never to listen to public opinion but always deal with the planning considerations. The new proposal seems to go directly against this.
Of course, public opinion has steered many a planning committee decision, but it least must be justified on the basis of material planning considerations and planning policies. Where they don't the decision is overturned and the council (and taxpayers) pay costs, so populist ignoring of policy is a bad idea. You can tell an unserious councillor if they ignore the possibility of an indefensible refusal getting overturned because 'democracy', even though it hurts their residents more.
The government seems to be saying now they wouldn't overturn such matters. So free for all on poor decisions.
Its the worst possible policy. NIMBY scum shouldn't have a say on what anyone else does on their land, let alone be given more of a say.
The other thing that is going on is that the government are now hell bent on totally destroying the property development industry. They have gone full on NIMBY, to try and save their electoral fortunes.
Two things to watch in the 'LURB' bill.
A government amendment for 'street votes'. So basically, instead of having the Council take a planning decision, it is decided instead by way of a referendum by people in the local area. So all the objectors can basically unite to vote down any proposal for development. The planning system gets replaced by direct democracy. This is actually likely to happen, it is going to probably become law.
Secondly, 46 tory backbenchers have backed an amendment that takes away housing targets, so Councils are under no actual obligation to build new housing. Something like this will happen given the level of support it has.
This is all absolutely psychotically stupid and insane. It is actually going to end the property development industry and all the jobs and economic growth it creates.
Would likely boost the Tories in the home counties and help them see off the threat from the LDs and Residents' Associations.
However removing major planning decisions from local authorities to direct referendum is probably going too far and would lead to most development projects and local plans being voted down
The second one won't get Labour support IMO so has little chance of passing. The first is a bit of bizarre populism. Is there a link to how it would work? If Mr Bloggs down the road wants a conservatory, do I get to vote on it? How close do I have to be that get a say? etc. Moreover, planning is not jjust an instinctive "Do I like the sound of that?" thing - it's a complex business requiring consideration of roads and other infrastructure as well as the impact on the surrounding area. I loathe endless debates about the precise angle of roofs and size of windows, and have stayed off the planning committees ever since I was elected to the council, but even I'd admit that someone with an eye for detail needs to grapple with the issue. It doesn't seem suitable for a yes/no vote on what folk down the road think.
The other thing that is going on is that the government are now hell bent on totally destroying the property development industry. They have gone full on NIMBY, to try and save their electoral fortunes.
Two things to watch in the 'LURB' bill.
A government amendment for 'street votes'. So basically, instead of having the Council take a planning decision, it is decided instead by way of a referendum by people in the local area. So all the objectors can basically unite to vote down any proposal for development. The planning system gets replaced by direct democracy. This is actually likely to happen, it is going to probably become law.
Secondly, 46 tory backbenchers have backed an amendment that takes away housing targets, so Councils are under no actual obligation to build new housing. Something like this will happen given the level of support it has.
This is all absolutely psychotically stupid and insane. It is actually going to end the property development industry and all the jobs and economic growth it creates.
Would likely boost the Tories in the home counties and help them see off the threat from the LDs and Residents' Associations.
However removing major planning decisions from local authorities to direct referendum is probably going too far and would lead to most development projects and local plans being voted down
The second one won't get Labour support IMO so has little chance of passing. The first is a bit of bizarre populism. Is there a link to how it would work? If Mr Bloggs down the road wants a conservatory, do I get to vote on it? How close do I have to be that get a say? etc. Moreover, planning is not jjust an instinctive "Do I like the sound of that?" thing - it's a complex business requiring consideration of roads and other infrastructure as well as the impact on the surrounding area. I loathe endless debates about the precise angle of roofs and size of windows, and have stayed off the planning committees ever since I was elected to the council, but even I'd admit that someone with an eye for detail needs to grapple with the issue. It doesn't seem suitable for a yes/no vote on what folk down the road think.
I spent a total of 28 years on three different planning committees. The one common standard advice was never to listen to public opinion but always deal with the planning considerations. The new proposal seems to go directly against this.
Of course, public opinion has steered many a planning committee decision, but it least must be justified on the basis of material planning considerations and planning policies. Where they don't the decision is overturned and the council (and taxpayers) pay costs, so populist ignoring of policy is a bad idea. You can tell an unserious councillor if they ignore the possibility of an indefensible refusal getting overturned because 'democracy', even though it hurts their residents more.
The government seems to be saying now they wouldn't overturn such matters. So free for all on poor decisions.
Its the worst possible policy. NIMBY scum shouldn't have a say on what anyone else does on their land, let alone be given more of a say.
Quite right too, if all your neighbours double the size of their properties and end your right to light and knock down trees which fall into your back garden what is the problem?
If they double the size of their properties, on their land, then that's their prerogative. Its their land, not mine.
If they damage my property with a fallen down tree then they should pay compensation same as any other vandalism or negligence. If they cut down a tree that was on their property safely and securely without affecting mine, then what business has it to do with me?
And if you lose any right to light too as they completely overshadow your property? If they build right up to the fence so they can look directly into your windows? Both legal as they can do whatever they want to on their land
So long as they meet any legal building standards, then yes, if its on their property, they should have carte blanche to do as they please without asking me or anyone else for permission.
Just as if a couple wants to have a child, they should be able to engage in coitus without asking neighbours for permission first, even though their act of coitus in their property in their land might have externalities on local schooling.
Couple of years old I'll try to find (ie google) more recent stats although with Covid perhaps the dynamics have changed.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
We've discussed this before. Brexit is done, its not dying on its arse. The future is up for grabs. Whether that is a much closer and better relationship with the EU (very desirable) or some nebulous Asian trading bloc (seems like a worse option). Brexit was leaving the political structures of the EU and stopping paying in money (and also to be fair receiving some of it back).
You fail to recognise that Brexit (like Blairism or Thatcherism or Whateverism) is an ideological project.
As such, it is now only hanging together through a combination of inertia and various bed-blockers in the Tory shires.
The wave function is in advanced collapse.
This seems like a complete misunderstanding. It's like saying that New Zealand is an ideological project, and seeing any political difficulties as a sign that it will inevitably join the Federation of Australia as nature intended.
NZ is an ideological project as well as a geopolitical fact. But the last time anyone seriously questioned that project was 1901.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
We've discussed this before. Brexit is done, its not dying on its arse. The future is up for grabs. Whether that is a much closer and better relationship with the EU (very desirable) or some nebulous Asian trading bloc (seems like a worse option). Brexit was leaving the political structures of the EU and stopping paying in money (and also to be fair receiving some of it back).
You fail to recognise that Brexit (like Blairism or Thatcherism or Whateverism) is an ideological project.
As such, it is now only hanging together through a combination of inertia and various bed-blockers in the Tory shires.
The wave function is in advanced collapse.
I don't fail to accept it, I just think that Brexit is the leaving of the EU, which is done. Our future is not. You are describing the political grouping of Brexiteers, rather than Brexit itself. The Brexiteer movement is in trouble, but Brexit is done.
The point is that Brexit itself is now reasonably likely to be reversed, because of the collapse of “Brexitism”.
Reversed? As in full fat back into the EU? I'm not convinced. A poll asking 'do you think it was right or wrong to leave the EU?' is not the same as 'do you want to rejoin the EU (on new terms, with the Euro, no rebate etc)' I think we will end up a lot closer but not rejoin.
I’m not convinced either. But the polling is headed one way only and there is increasing talk (which I don’t agree with) that the fix to British economic doldrums is to Rejoin.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
We've discussed this before. Brexit is done, its not dying on its arse. The future is up for grabs. Whether that is a much closer and better relationship with the EU (very desirable) or some nebulous Asian trading bloc (seems like a worse option). Brexit was leaving the political structures of the EU and stopping paying in money (and also to be fair receiving some of it back).
You fail to recognise that Brexit (like Blairism or Thatcherism or Whateverism) is an ideological project.
As such, it is now only hanging together through a combination of inertia and various bed-blockers in the Tory shires.
The wave function is in advanced collapse.
I don't fail to accept it, I just think that Brexit is the leaving of the EU, which is done. Our future is not. You are describing the political grouping of Brexiteers, rather than Brexit itself. The Brexiteer movement is in trouble, but Brexit is done.
The point is that Brexit itself is now reasonably likely to be reversed, because of the collapse of “Brexitism”.
History doesn't have a reverse gear.
It's reasonably likely that there will be a majority Labour government elected on what is effectively a pro-Brexit platform.
OECD forecasts UK to have worst growth in G7 next year but gives a VERY weird justification. Apparently Energy Price Guarantee generosity is the problem... which is odd. EPG is worth just £300 vs current estimates of typical energy bills https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-63704841
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
Brexit can't "die on its arse".
It has already been and gone. The UK has already left the European Union.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
Brexit can't "die on its arse".
It has already been and gone. The UK has already left the European Union.
Remain "died on its arse".
Rejoin WILL "die on its arse".
You are very old and are part of a dwindling cohort. The times they are a-changing.
Owen Paterson, former MP and minister, has launched a case against the UK government at the European Court of Human Rights, complaining about the Commons process. The case has been “communicated” to the government by the court, giving the government an opportunity to respond. https://twitter.com/ECHR_CEDH/status/1595070011940429827
OECD forecasts UK to have worst growth in G7 next year but gives a VERY weird justification. Apparently Energy Price Guarantee generosity is the problem... which is odd. EPG is worth just £300 vs current estimates of typical energy bills https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-63704841
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
Vote Leave… Brexit is a good idea Brexit is a good idea but badly implemented Brexit is a good idea but badly implemented and very costly Brexit doesn’t work because of Remainers Brexit must be fixed because of Remainers Brexit must be fixed by Remainers
The other thing that is going on is that the government are now hell bent on totally destroying the property development industry. They have gone full on NIMBY, to try and save their electoral fortunes.
Two things to watch in the 'LURB' bill.
A government amendment for 'street votes'. So basically, instead of having the Council take a planning decision, it is decided instead by way of a referendum by people in the local area. So all the objectors can basically unite to vote down any proposal for development. The planning system gets replaced by direct democracy. This is actually likely to happen, it is going to probably become law.
Secondly, 46 tory backbenchers have backed an amendment that takes away housing targets, so Councils are under no actual obligation to build new housing. Something like this will happen given the level of support it has.
This is all absolutely psychotically stupid and insane. It is actually going to end the property development industry and all the jobs and economic growth it creates.
Would likely boost the Tories in the home counties and help them see off the threat from the LDs and Residents' Associations.
However removing major planning decisions from local authorities to direct referendum is probably going too far and would lead to most development projects and local plans being voted down
The second one won't get Labour support IMO so has little chance of passing. The first is a bit of bizarre populism. Is there a link to how it would work? If Mr Bloggs down the road wants a conservatory, do I get to vote on it? How close do I have to be that get a say? etc. Moreover, planning is not jjust an instinctive "Do I like the sound of that?" thing - it's a complex business requiring consideration of roads and other infrastructure as well as the impact on the surrounding area. I loathe endless debates about the precise angle of roofs and size of windows, and have stayed off the planning committees ever since I was elected to the council, but even I'd admit that someone with an eye for detail needs to grapple with the issue. It doesn't seem suitable for a yes/no vote on what folk down the road think.
The other thing that is going on is that the government are now hell bent on totally destroying the property development industry. They have gone full on NIMBY, to try and save their electoral fortunes.
Two things to watch in the 'LURB' bill.
A government amendment for 'street votes'. So basically, instead of having the Council take a planning decision, it is decided instead by way of a referendum by people in the local area. So all the objectors can basically unite to vote down any proposal for development. The planning system gets replaced by direct democracy. This is actually likely to happen, it is going to probably become law.
Secondly, 46 tory backbenchers have backed an amendment that takes away housing targets, so Councils are under no actual obligation to build new housing. Something like this will happen given the level of support it has.
This is all absolutely psychotically stupid and insane. It is actually going to end the property development industry and all the jobs and economic growth it creates.
Would likely boost the Tories in the home counties and help them see off the threat from the LDs and Residents' Associations.
However removing major planning decisions from local authorities to direct referendum is probably going too far and would lead to most development projects and local plans being voted down
The second one won't get Labour support IMO so has little chance of passing. The first is a bit of bizarre populism. Is there a link to how it would work? If Mr Bloggs down the road wants a conservatory, do I get to vote on it? How close do I have to be that get a say? etc. Moreover, planning is not jjust an instinctive "Do I like the sound of that?" thing - it's a complex business requiring consideration of roads and other infrastructure as well as the impact on the surrounding area. I loathe endless debates about the precise angle of roofs and size of windows, and have stayed off the planning committees ever since I was elected to the council, but even I'd admit that someone with an eye for detail needs to grapple with the issue. It doesn't seem suitable for a yes/no vote on what folk down the road think.
I spent a total of 28 years on three different planning committees. The one common standard advice was never to listen to public opinion but always deal with the planning considerations. The new proposal seems to go directly against this.
Of course, public opinion has steered many a planning committee decision, but it least must be justified on the basis of material planning considerations and planning policies. Where they don't the decision is overturned and the council (and taxpayers) pay costs, so populist ignoring of policy is a bad idea. You can tell an unserious councillor if they ignore the possibility of an indefensible refusal getting overturned because 'democracy', even though it hurts their residents more.
The government seems to be saying now they wouldn't overturn such matters. So free for all on poor decisions.
Its the worst possible policy. NIMBY scum shouldn't have a say on what anyone else does on their land, let alone be given more of a say.
When you rant on about NIMBY's you always forget the externalities. I don't have a problem with anyone building anywhere. Subject to the community if there are externalities, from utilities, to road access to sewage and even to schools, shops, medical.
You forget all that. Which is unlike you.
Because the externalities line is a bullshit excuse. Utter bullshit.
How much of an externality to schooling is there for a single home being built and bought by a childless couple?
How much of an externality to schooling is it if an elderly widow dies in her home and it gets sold to a young family with three children?
Demographics change, its up to the Council to adapt. The way to handle externalities is through taxation, not planning.
If you wish to buy a packet of cigarettes you don't need to go through a planning committee to handle all the externalities for that tobacco before you buy it, you buy it and pay the duty concerned. That duty amongst other things pays for the NHS.
If you wish to buy a tank of petrol you don't need to go through a planning committee to handle all the externalities for that fuel before you buy it, you buy it and pay the duty concerned. That duty amongst other things pays for roads, rails, schools and more.
If you think there's an externality to new homes then design a duty to cover the cost of that. A set fee that is payable that can then be spent accordingly on whatever priorities or demographic pressures the Council has. But if all taxes are paid, then there should not be any delays due to "externalities" any more than there is on anything else which has a duty.
There are tremendous externalities to new houses.
I quite like the Victorian/Edwardian approach. They laid out areas, built train lines, roads, sewers, gas mains, school & hospitals. Then sold the plots of land to be developed - often by one side of a street.
Seems to have worked pretty well. If we could capture the heat of the anger of those who scream about "why do the shit scum love Edwardian houses instead of Proper Modern Planning And Construction?" we could solve the energy crisis overnight.
There's a great deal to be said for that approach: build the services and let people build more or less what they want on the plots.
There may not have been planning permission or a requirement on local authorities that they operate "schemes" (that came in in 1909), but prior to WW1 it was considered absolute anathema to allow proletarians to own plots of land, so the question of what they might build on them didn't arise.
The Peacehaven project that began in 1916 was something completely new. The attitude among some of the rich was that if it wasn't unlawful then somebody must have been guilty of a simple oversight because it was self-evidently morally wrong and against natural order for the proles to own property.
Then you had the idea that "You can't expect to get an A1 population out of C3 homes", referring to military fitness classifications. That doesn't apply today.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
Are all those PBers who like to play this now going to have to be tested for vibrating butt plugs first?
Meta AI presents CICERO — the first AI to achieve human-level performance in Diplomacy, a strategy game which requires building trust, negotiating and cooperating with multiple players.
I haven't taken the British government's management of the economy seriously since former TalkTalk CEO Dido Harding was put in charge of Covid "Test and Trace" by her pal Boris Johnson.
Now she's in charge of "improving the NHS". I wonder how she'll fare.
Before getting the Test and Trace job she was at Tesco, Sainsbury, and the Jockey Club, and got made a legislator for life by her other pal David Cameron.
TalkTalk, yes, TalkTalk - the notorious phone and broadband company.
It's basically jump in through the windows and see what you can rob before the house collapses time, isn't it, as it was in Russia in say 1990 to 1993?
A graphic from the Guardian to amplify the info in the header:
A caution for those getting so excited about this....they are predictions. Anyone basing anything of predictions now is a village idiot. We still have a war in the ukraine going on, covid going on etc.....I expect many of the values predicted to be out by quite a margin both ways under the current circumstances
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
With a few more good, positive, points, Remain would have won. Not even very many.
OECD forecasts UK to have worst growth in G7 next year but gives a VERY weird justification. Apparently Energy Price Guarantee generosity is the problem... which is odd. EPG is worth just £300 vs current estimates of typical energy bills https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-63704841
Do you agree with their logic? They are saying that the energy support package will be inflationary and force up interest rates and that's the mechanism that will suppress growth.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
No the main problem is they confuse regret with rejoin. A lot of people are unhappy with Brexit, but that is a mile away from people endorsing rejoining the EU. I keep banging on about it but only a third of people want to be in the Single Market, and even most Remainers are opposed to a preferential treatment of EU migrants. So there's the chasm between people being fed up with the Brexit mess and rejoining the EU as it actually is. The smart thing to do would be to argue for something like EFTA, but full-on rejoin looks like a frankly suicidal campaign right now.
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
Nope.
Truss and Kwasi were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong)
The reality of Brexit as shitshow is crushing it more effectively than any campaign alternatives.
I haven't taken the British government's management of the economy seriously since former TalkTalk CEO Dido Harding was put in charge of Covid "Test and Trace" by her pal Boris Johnson.
Now she's in charge of "improving the NHS". I wonder how she'll fare.
Before getting the Test and Trace job she was at Tesco, Sainsbury, and the Jockey Club, and got made a legislator for life by her other pal David Cameron.
TalkTalk, yes, TalkTalk - the notorious phone and broadband company.
It's basically jump in through the windows and see what you can rob before the house collapses time, isn't it, as it was in Russia in say 1990 to 1993?
A graphic from the Guardian to amplify the info in the header:
A caution for those getting so excited about this....they are predictions. Anyone basing anything of predictions now is a village idiot. We still have a war in the ukraine going on, covid going on etc.....I expect many of the values predicted to be out by quite a margin both ways under the current circumstances
We need a bot to post this again when we have the actual figures.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Nope.
Brexiteers are selling anti-BREXIT lines.
We are just joining in the fun...
Talk of what "Remainers" are doing doesn't raise hopes for the predicate of the sentence. There are no Remainers. Britain isn't in the EU. The British economy outside the EU is faring like sh*t. But wait...the Satan of "freedom of movement" has been banished, and there's talk of trying to turn Singapore-on-Greece into another Switzerland (population: 9 million), but the Poshitburo member at No.11 may have told the press without checking with his colleagues first, so it's anybody's guess what the government's policy is or whether they've even got one. One might reasonably ask who the nutcases are. What a shame the Labour party isn't going to support rejoining but prefers to sound off about immigration. That's while the CBI says there's a labour shortage. What a f***ing mess.
Now, it may be that the UK's economic performance is the worst in the G20, bar Russia. It may also be the case that it's the best in the G20. Or, indeed, somewhere in between.
I would like to place a small bet that the UK will not be in 19th or 20th position over the next two years, although I wouldn't like to bet we'll be in the top half of the table.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
With a few more good, positive, points, Remain would have won. Not even very many.
I agree. I know it risks being accused of blaming Remainers for the Brexit vote, but there was nothing, nothing, positive about the case for remain. It was all scare tactics and doom (might be considered prophetic, but still).
Oh come on, we've got the old passports back! (If only they were made in the UK...)
I don't have to charge (and remit) VAT based on the destination country of EU orders. When you're selling books (zero rated here, and Ireland) but not elsewhere, thats a huge administrative win.
Now, it may be that the UK's economic performance is the worst in the G20, bar Russia. It may also be the case that it's the best in the G20. Or, indeed, somewhere in between.
I would like to place a small bet that the UK will not be in 19th or 20th position over the next two years, although I wouldn't like to bet we'll be in the top half of the table.
"I wouldn't like to bet we'll be in the top half of the table" has being put on the side of a bus written all over it.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
A major problem for Brexit is that euro-scepticism within the Labour Party has gone the way of the dinosaurs. The few eurosceptic Labour MPs that there were - Hoey, Stuart, Hopkins, Skinner, Magic Grandpa - are either no longer in the Commons or have lost the whip (bar Graham Stringer, I think). When the most prominent Labour Brexiteer is *Paul Embery* you know there isn't any kind of eurosceptic movement within the Labour Party anymore. That means everyone who has any power in the Labour Party thinks Brexit is s**t and if they could get us back in the EU with the wave of a magic wand they would do so tomorrow. The only reason Labour aren't currently planning to take us back into the EU or the SM is fear of upsetting voters in the Red Wall. But that means Labour will embrace any opportunities to bring us closer to the EU without angering Red Wall former-Brexit voters Labour will take them. Hence, the longer Labour remains in power, the more Brexit will get gradually salami sliced.
Here is the IMF estimate on GDP per capita (2022).
Switzerland, 84,469 Denmark, 68,845 Netherlands, 69,715 Sweden, 63,877 Germany, 63,855 Belgium, 62,065 France, 56,200 United Kingdom, 55,862
Here is the GINI co-efficient from 2019. Higher is more unequal.
Switzerland, 33.1 Denmark, 27.7 Netherlands, 29.2 Sweden, 29.3 Germany, 31.7 Belgium, 27.2 France, 32.4 United Kingdom, 35.1
The UK is poorer and more unequal than its neighbours.
Interesting. How much is the GINI distorted by London? Is it possible to even see such effects?
I am sure it is.
As I often post, Britain is *also* the most regionally unequal of this peer group, which is why living standards in the North/Midlands are essentially on a par with Eastern European countries like Czech or the Baltics now.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
What is the point in being "anti" something which has already happened?
What's the point of being "pro" something that's shit?
No answer, then.
I literally answered your question. Being for or against things rather than simply accepting everything as it is is surely the essence of politics. I'm surprised that this needs spelling out to someone who contributes BTL on a political blog!
No, you really didn't. Asking a different (albeit related) question is not answering the question!
The point is: defining yourself as still being "for" or "against" something that has already happened is pointless, and detracts from where you should be, which is being "for" something that can be done in future to improve things. "I wouldn't start from here" is a waste of time.
Okay, I am against Brexit and would like to see its negative effects ameliorated in the short term. In the long run I would like to see it reversed. Is that alright?
No, because you're still wasting time being "against" something that has already happened.
"I am against Brexit" is silly.
"I am against Brexit silly" is like "I am against cancer silly", because you didn't choose to have either of them but you are stuck with them.
Yes, up to a point. But you might want to get rid of them if you can, or at least lessen their effects.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
You though I get the impression think its purely whether the countries economy is better that makes it good for the country. So a serious question for you here for a moment, and the hypothetical is not about reality as we would argue back and forth on that one so just an answer as if its true from you
a) The economy grows by 3% year on year but half the population has to live on governement handouts such as working tax credits with falling living standards
b) The economy doesnt grow but everyone can make enough in wages to live reasonably comfortably and while living standards arent improving nor are they getting worse.
Personally I would choose b) everytime
This implies you share one of my strongest political beliefs - that the main focus of UK governments should be on reducing our level of inequality not on chasing growth. Despite this intertwining of our very souls you have yet to agree with a single thing I've written in my 31,923 posts! It must be the way I tell em.
Just to clarify: you would rather everyone was worse off as long as the rich lost most than that everyone was better off than better off if the rich were to gain most?
That doesn't follow. My point is governments can impact wealth distribution more than they can wealth creation. Also we need to get used to lower trend growth now. This will be less of a problem if the wealth we do have as a country - which is rather a lot - is shared more equally. If we don't find a way of doing this it will condemn many millions of people to increasingly perilous financial circumstances.
Wealth redistribution heavily damages wealth creation. If you penalise the enterprising and successful and give money to the feckless and incompetent, guess what, you'll have more of the latter and less of the former.
Which is what we've been doing for the last couple of decades, and the suprising thing is that we're growing at all.
Presenting an increasingly discredited ideology as fact. Do not pass Go. Do not collect your £200.
I haven't taken the British government's management of the economy seriously since former TalkTalk CEO Dido Harding was put in charge of Covid "Test and Trace" by her pal Boris Johnson.
Now she's in charge of "improving the NHS". I wonder how she'll fare.
Before getting the Test and Trace job she was at Tesco, Sainsbury, and the Jockey Club, and got made a legislator for life by her other pal David Cameron.
TalkTalk, yes, TalkTalk - the notorious phone and broadband company.
It's basically jump in through the windows and see what you can rob before the house collapses time, isn't it, as it was in Russia in say 1990 to 1993?
A graphic from the Guardian to amplify the info in the header:
So...
Let's look at that list, shall we.
US, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and Saudi Arabia are all major commodity producers. As, in a smaller way, are Argentina, Indonesia and even China. Their economies benefit to a greater or lesser extent from Ukraine invasion and elevated commodity pricing.
India and Indonesia both have big demographic bonuses (i.e. a growing proportion of working age people).
Really, our compares are: Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Korea and Japan.
Of those, we're forecast to perform the worst, which (I suspect) will be a function of the fact that we import energy and food, and that we lack long-term contracts.
And that's really it. When commodity prices dip again (and they will, because that's the nature of commodities), then the UK will benefit while many of those other countries will struggle.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
With a few more good, positive, points, Remain would have won. Not even very many.
I agree. I know it risks being accused of blaming Remainers for the Brexit vote, but there was nothing, nothing, positive about the case for remain. It was all scare tactics and doom (might be considered prophetic, but still).
When that fucking idiot came out with the "but, but wages will rise" - that was a Bill Clinton limo moment.
Here is the IMF estimate on GDP per capita (2022).
Switzerland, 84,469 Denmark, 68,845 Netherlands, 69,715 Sweden, 63,877 Germany, 63,855 Belgium, 62,065 France, 56,200 United Kingdom, 55,862
Here is the GINI co-efficient from 2019. Higher is more unequal.
Switzerland, 33.1 Denmark, 27.7 Netherlands, 29.2 Sweden, 29.3 Germany, 31.7 Belgium, 27.2 France, 32.4 United Kingdom, 35.1
The UK is poorer and more unequal than its neighbours.
You get a different picture if you look at net financial wealth per capita.
Ah hem, isn't that completely distorted by high UK house prices?
Which is a boon for people aged about 45 and up who got to buy properties at low rates and have made out like banditos. But really sucks for 25 year olds.
I haven't taken the British government's management of the economy seriously since former TalkTalk CEO Dido Harding was put in charge of Covid "Test and Trace" by her pal Boris Johnson.
Now she's in charge of "improving the NHS". I wonder how she'll fare.
Before getting the Test and Trace job she was at Tesco, Sainsbury, and the Jockey Club, and got made a legislator for life by her other pal David Cameron.
TalkTalk, yes, TalkTalk - the notorious phone and broadband company.
It's basically jump in through the windows and see what you can rob before the house collapses time, isn't it, as it was in Russia in say 1990 to 1993?
A graphic from the Guardian to amplify the info in the header:
So...
Let's look at that list, shall we.
US, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and Saudi Arabia are all major commodity producers. As, in a smaller way, are Argentina, Indonesia and even China. Their economies benefit to a greater or lesser extent from Ukraine invasion and elevated commodity pricing.
India and Indonesia both have big demographic bonuses (i.e. a growing proportion of working age people).
Really, our compares are: Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Korea and Japan.
Of those, we're forecast to perform the worst, which (I suspect) will be a function of the fact that we import energy and food, and that we lack long-term contracts.
And that's really it. When commodity prices dip again (and they will, because that's the nature of commodities), then the UK will benefit while many of those other countries will struggle.
The Guardian makes a good case that we should steal some natural resources. Invade Qatar?
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
What is the point in being "anti" something which has already happened?
What's the point of being "pro" something that's shit?
No answer, then.
I literally answered your question. Being for or against things rather than simply accepting everything as it is is surely the essence of politics. I'm surprised that this needs spelling out to someone who contributes BTL on a political blog!
No, you really didn't. Asking a different (albeit related) question is not answering the question!
The point is: defining yourself as still being "for" or "against" something that has already happened is pointless, and detracts from where you should be, which is being "for" something that can be done in future to improve things. "I wouldn't start from here" is a waste of time.
Okay, I am against Brexit and would like to see its negative effects ameliorated in the short term. In the long run I would like to see it reversed. Is that alright?
No, because you're still wasting time being "against" something that has already happened.
"I am against Brexit" is silly.
"I am against Brexit silly" is like "I am against cancer silly", because you didn't choose to have either of them but you are stuck with them.
Yes, up to a point. But you might want to get rid of them if you can, or at least lessen their effects.
It's remarkable how opponents of Brexit are trying to invert the normal understanding of European integration. The EU is no longer the "project" but Brexit is. Having the normal powers of an independent state is painted as a strange affliction that we need to unburden ourselves from.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
You though I get the impression think its purely whether the countries economy is better that makes it good for the country. So a serious question for you here for a moment, and the hypothetical is not about reality as we would argue back and forth on that one so just an answer as if its true from you
a) The economy grows by 3% year on year but half the population has to live on governement handouts such as working tax credits with falling living standards
b) The economy doesnt grow but everyone can make enough in wages to live reasonably comfortably and while living standards arent improving nor are they getting worse.
Personally I would choose b) everytime
This implies you share one of my strongest political beliefs - that the main focus of UK governments should be on reducing our level of inequality not on chasing growth. Despite this intertwining of our very souls you have yet to agree with a single thing I've written in my 31,923 posts! It must be the way I tell em.
Just to clarify: you would rather everyone was worse off as long as the rich lost most than that everyone was better off than better off if the rich were to gain most?
That doesn't follow. My point is governments can impact wealth distribution more than they can wealth creation. Also we need to get used to lower trend growth now. This will be less of a problem if the wealth we do have as a country - which is rather a lot - is shared more equally. If we don't find a way of doing this it will condemn many millions of people to increasingly perilous financial circumstances.
Wealth redistribution heavily damages wealth creation. If you penalise the enterprising and successful and give money to the feckless and incompetent, guess what, you'll have more of the latter and less of the former.
Which is what we've been doing for the last couple of decades, and the suprising thing is that we're growing at all.
And yet, Britain’s neighbours are both more equal *and* richer.
It’s a total head-scratcher.
[Citation Needed]
GDP per capita
United Kingdom 47,334.36 USD France 43,518.54 USD
I don’t know where this comes from, but judging from your posting history this is some selective crapola.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin, and in any case the relevant comparators should be
France Germany Netherlands Belgium Sweden Denmark
I would omit Ireland and Norway for different reasons.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin on GDP per capita? I think not. Though when it comes to selective crapola, comparing the UK to Scandinavian and Benelux micronations certainly fits the bill.
When it comes to medium/large countries in Western Europe there are five reasonable nations to compare between, in alphabetical order:
France Germany Italy Spain United Kingdom
And taking World Bank/OECD data on GDP per capita, the UK is in second place there out of five. Not top of the league, but are neighbours are not richer.
Always ask yourself cui bono. On this occasion, a very tousle-haired ex-PM who Owen Paterson owes a favour also would bono from a favourable decision, and no doubt doesn't want to blow credibility.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
With a few more good, positive, points, Remain would have won. Not even very many.
I agree. I know it risks being accused of blaming Remainers for the Brexit vote, but there was nothing, nothing, positive about the case for remain. It was all scare tactics and doom (might be considered prophetic, but still).
Yes, that was a mistake and I said so at the time. The mistake was to focus on purely transactional issues and not the positive vision of a European family.
When we Rejoin I hope it isn't just because of Brexit making us the sick man of Europe again, but because of a more positive attitude to pan-Continental approaches to the problems of our times.
It has already been and gone. The UK has already left the European Union.
Remain "died on its arse".
Rejoin WILL "die on its arse".
Brexit the idea is dead.
The people who voted for it don't like it.
The people who advocated it and campaigned for it don't like it.
Do you want to join the Euro?
I really don't mind at all. I hardly use physical cash for weeks at a time, money is just numbers on a card now and it matters little what currency I use.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
You though I get the impression think its purely whether the countries economy is better that makes it good for the country. So a serious question for you here for a moment, and the hypothetical is not about reality as we would argue back and forth on that one so just an answer as if its true from you
a) The economy grows by 3% year on year but half the population has to live on governement handouts such as working tax credits with falling living standards
b) The economy doesnt grow but everyone can make enough in wages to live reasonably comfortably and while living standards arent improving nor are they getting worse.
Personally I would choose b) everytime
This implies you share one of my strongest political beliefs - that the main focus of UK governments should be on reducing our level of inequality not on chasing growth. Despite this intertwining of our very souls you have yet to agree with a single thing I've written in my 31,923 posts! It must be the way I tell em.
Just to clarify: you would rather everyone was worse off as long as the rich lost most than that everyone was better off than better off if the rich were to gain most?
That doesn't follow. My point is governments can impact wealth distribution more than they can wealth creation. Also we need to get used to lower trend growth now. This will be less of a problem if the wealth we do have as a country - which is rather a lot - is shared more equally. If we don't find a way of doing this it will condemn many millions of people to increasingly perilous financial circumstances.
Wealth redistribution heavily damages wealth creation. If you penalise the enterprising and successful and give money to the feckless and incompetent, guess what, you'll have more of the latter and less of the former.
Which is what we've been doing for the last couple of decades, and the suprising thing is that we're growing at all.
And yet, Britain’s neighbours are both more equal *and* richer.
It’s a total head-scratcher.
[Citation Needed]
GDP per capita
United Kingdom 47,334.36 USD France 43,518.54 USD
I don’t know where this comes from, but judging from your posting history this is some selective crapola.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin, and in any case the relevant comparators should be
France Germany Netherlands Belgium Sweden Denmark
I would omit Ireland and Norway for different reasons.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin on GDP per capita? I think not. Though when it comes to selective crapola, comparing the UK to Scandinavian and Benelux micronations certainly fits the bill.
When it comes to medium/large countries in Western Europe there are five reasonable nations to compare between, in alphabetical order:
France Germany Italy Spain United Kingdom
And taking World Bank/OECD data on GDP per capita, the UK is in second place there out of five. Not top of the league, but are neighbours are not richer.
You’re not correcting for PPP, ie you are peddling crap.
That the UK should no longer bother striving to achieve a similar living standard to the rest of North West Europe and console itself that it is doing better than Italy is pretty crap, don’t you think?
No wonder most people believe the UK is in decline.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
With a few more good, positive, points, Remain would have won. Not even very many.
I agree. I know it risks being accused of blaming Remainers for the Brexit vote, but there was nothing, nothing, positive about the case for remain. It was all scare tactics and doom (might be considered prophetic, but still).
At least the Remain campaign was honest. The EU is flawed but Brexit will be worse. FOM causes problems but Brexit will be worse. Membership costs us money but Brexit will be worse. No-one was standing on the Cliffs of Dover singing Ode to Joy because we were not particularly joyful. It's just that Brexit will be worse.
A mendacious pro-European campaign larded with transcontinental patriotism might have worked. But even so, Brexit will be worse.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
You though I get the impression think its purely whether the countries economy is better that makes it good for the country. So a serious question for you here for a moment, and the hypothetical is not about reality as we would argue back and forth on that one so just an answer as if its true from you
a) The economy grows by 3% year on year but half the population has to live on governement handouts such as working tax credits with falling living standards
b) The economy doesnt grow but everyone can make enough in wages to live reasonably comfortably and while living standards arent improving nor are they getting worse.
Personally I would choose b) everytime
This implies you share one of my strongest political beliefs - that the focus of UK governments should be more on reducing our level of inequality than on chasing growth. Despite this intertwining of our very souls you have yet to agree with a single thing I've written in my 31,923 posts! It must be the way I tell em.
I agree that those at the bottom should be able to live a life of dignity on the fruit of their labour. I don't care if inequality remains as it is now as long as the bottom most can goto work in the knowledge it pays them enough to have shelter, food, warmth with some left over for some of the nicer things in life...a good meal out, a holiday etc.
I do not think the two are the same thing.
To achieve a significant increase in the living standards of the lower quartile without a significant decrease in inequality requires a level of sustainable economic growth that is looking increasingly improbable. So like it or not with your views you should be a warrior against inequality. There'll be a warm welcome when you realize this. And I'll save you a seat.
It may well be the case that inequality would decrease to level up the bottom of the pile. The difference between us is I don't care either way and it would just be a side effect whereas for you I get the impression that the change in inequality is the main thing you want more than the levelling up the bottom and that if the bottom did get to the happy state I described but inequality remain unchanged you would still be unhappy.
This is the problem of the left....you are fighting human nature.
If you say "I think the bottom half of the population needs improvements in pay and living standards" few on the right would disagree with you.
When you say "I think the bottom half of the population needs improvements in pay and living standards and you need to become poorer with worse living standards" most of the "you" is going to be going nah don't fancy that. You need to sell an idea of how to get there rather than just the we will take your money to pay for it. That is exactly what in work benefits are and they are demoralising because what you are saying to someone is "you aren't worth enough as a worker to make a comfortable wage"
Sell an idea that people can get behind such as proper training which can be accessed by those on working tax credits. Examples might be a plumbing course, fork lift driving,electricians course, lorry driving, how to run a business and many more and say yes initially its going to cost the tax payer but as people uplift their skills they will pay more tax and gradually the tax burden will spread over more shoulders and we can bit by bit pay less as time passes.
Take from the rich to give to the poor may have been a great slogan for Robin Hood but he wasn't running to be prime minister
My point is an advanced economy facing the lasting prospect of low growth must focus on achieving a more equal distribution of wealth otherwise its less advantaged citizens face an increasingly precarious future. How to do this is a lot more difficult than just typing out that it needs to happen - and if that's YOUR point I totally agree with it.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
We've discussed this before. Brexit is done, its not dying on its arse. The future is up for grabs. Whether that is a much closer and better relationship with the EU (very desirable) or some nebulous Asian trading bloc (seems like a worse option). Brexit was leaving the political structures of the EU and stopping paying in money (and also to be fair receiving some of it back).
You fail to recognise that Brexit (like Blairism or Thatcherism or Whateverism) is an ideological project.
As such, it is now only hanging together through a combination of inertia and various bed-blockers in the Tory shires.
The wave function is in advanced collapse.
I don't fail to accept it, I just think that Brexit is the leaving of the EU, which is done. Our future is not. You are describing the political grouping of Brexiteers, rather than Brexit itself. The Brexiteer movement is in trouble, but Brexit is done.
The point is that Brexit itself is now reasonably likely to be reversed, because of the collapse of “Brexitism”.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
What is the point in being "anti" something which has already happened?
What's the point of being "pro" something that's shit?
No answer, then.
I literally answered your question. Being for or against things rather than simply accepting everything as it is is surely the essence of politics. I'm surprised that this needs spelling out to someone who contributes BTL on a political blog!
No, you really didn't. Asking a different (albeit related) question is not answering the question!
The point is: defining yourself as still being "for" or "against" something that has already happened is pointless, and detracts from where you should be, which is being "for" something that can be done in future to improve things. "I wouldn't start from here" is a waste of time.
Okay, I am against Brexit and would like to see its negative effects ameliorated in the short term. In the long run I would like to see it reversed. Is that alright?
No, because you're still wasting time being "against" something that has already happened.
"I am against Brexit" is silly.
"I am against Brexit silly" is like "I am against cancer silly", because you didn't choose to have either of them but you are stuck with them.
Yes, up to a point. But you might want to get rid of them if you can, or at least lessen their effects.
It's remarkable how opponents of Brexit are trying to invert the normal understanding of European integration. The EU is no longer the "project" but Brexit is. Having the normal powers of an independent state is painted as a strange affliction that we need to unburden ourselves from.
Maybe a response to another comment? This has no relevance to what I posted. FWIW I don't agree with your point anyway.
Always ask yourself cui bono. On this occasion, a very tousle-haired ex-PM who Owen Paterson owes a favour also would bono from a favourable decision, and no doubt doesn't want to blow credibility.
Yes, that was a mistake and I said so at the time. The mistake was to focus on purely transactional issues and not the positive vision of a European family.
When we Rejoin I hope it isn't just because of Brexit making us the sick man of Europe again, but because of a more positive attitude to pan-Continental approaches to the problems of our times.
The idea of addressing global problems with a "pan-Continental" approach as a "European family" is very Giorgia Meloni.
Always ask yourself cui bono. On this occasion, a very tousle-haired ex-PM who Owen Paterson owes a favour also would bono from a favourable decision, and no doubt doesn't want to blow credibility.
What an absolute prat Paterson is. Utterly convinced of his inability to ever do anything wrong.
And this is the chap Boris decided to blow his authority over.
Indeed although
Since Owen Paterson is not about to resume a Parliamentary career and this won't clear his name anyway, we can assume that he is not just acting in his own interest.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
With a few more good, positive, points, Remain would have won. Not even very many.
I agree. I know it risks being accused of blaming Remainers for the Brexit vote, but there was nothing, nothing, positive about the case for remain. It was all scare tactics and doom (might be considered prophetic, but still).
At least the Remain campaign was honest. The EU is flawed but Brexit will be worse. FOM causes problems but Brexit will be worse. Membership costs us money but Brexit will be worse. No-one was standing on the Cliffs of Dover singing Ode to Joy because we were not particularly joyful. It's just that Brexit will be worse.
A mendacious pro-European campaign larded with transcontinental patriotism might have worked. But even so, Brexit will be worse.
Bollocks was it. It denied the fundamental nature of the EU project, for a start.
Always ask yourself cui bono. On this occasion, a very tousle-haired ex-PM who Owen Paterson owes a favour also would bono from a favourable decision, and no doubt doesn't want to blow credibility.
What an absolute prat Paterson is. Utterly convinced of his inability to ever do anything wrong.
And this is the chap Boris decided to blow his authority over.
Indeed although
Since Owen Paterson is not about to resume a Parliamentary career and this won't clear his name anyway, we can assume that he is not just acting in his own interest.
Wouldn't be too sure. I've known types who would persue this sort of thing well past the bounds of reason. Some important rulings can even occur that way!
I forgot to add hes a liar, since like a lot of people who fall afoul of standards regimes, including Bercow, he lied about his ability to respond and challenge things.
Vote Leave… Brexit is a good idea Brexit is a good idea but badly implemented Brexit is a good idea but badly implemented and very costly Brexit doesn’t work because of Remainers Brexit must be fixed because of Remainers Brexit must be fixed by Remainers
And while they're fixing it they have to go back to step 1 - and pretend it was a good idea.
Owen Patterson taking the UK govt to court at the ECHR 🤣 had to check it wasn't April 1st.
'But, in the light of his decision to launch legal action, Paterson may be glad the government never followed the advice of the prominent Tory who gave a speech in 2014 saying the UK should break free of the European convention on human rights, on which the court adjudicates. That was Paterson himself.'
Yes, that was a mistake and I said so at the time. The mistake was to focus on purely transactional issues and not the positive vision of a European family.
When we Rejoin I hope it isn't just because of Brexit making us the sick man of Europe again, but because of a more positive attitude to pan-Continental approaches to the problems of our times.
The idea of addressing global problems with a "pan-Continental" approach as a "European family" is very Giorgia Meloni.
There are problems specific to our continent as well as global issues, and global issues also have regional implications.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
You though I get the impression think its purely whether the countries economy is better that makes it good for the country. So a serious question for you here for a moment, and the hypothetical is not about reality as we would argue back and forth on that one so just an answer as if its true from you
a) The economy grows by 3% year on year but half the population has to live on governement handouts such as working tax credits with falling living standards
b) The economy doesnt grow but everyone can make enough in wages to live reasonably comfortably and while living standards arent improving nor are they getting worse.
Personally I would choose b) everytime
This implies you share one of my strongest political beliefs - that the main focus of UK governments should be on reducing our level of inequality not on chasing growth. Despite this intertwining of our very souls you have yet to agree with a single thing I've written in my 31,923 posts! It must be the way I tell em.
Just to clarify: you would rather everyone was worse off as long as the rich lost most than that everyone was better off than better off if the rich were to gain most?
That doesn't follow. My point is governments can impact wealth distribution more than they can wealth creation. Also we need to get used to lower trend growth now. This will be less of a problem if the wealth we do have as a country - which is rather a lot - is shared more equally. If we don't find a way of doing this it will condemn many millions of people to increasingly perilous financial circumstances.
Wealth redistribution heavily damages wealth creation. If you penalise the enterprising and successful and give money to the feckless and incompetent, guess what, you'll have more of the latter and less of the former.
Which is what we've been doing for the last couple of decades, and the suprising thing is that we're growing at all.
And yet, Britain’s neighbours are both more equal *and* richer.
It’s a total head-scratcher.
[Citation Needed]
GDP per capita
United Kingdom 47,334.36 USD France 43,518.54 USD
I don’t know where this comes from, but judging from your posting history this is some selective crapola.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin, and in any case the relevant comparators should be
France Germany Netherlands Belgium Sweden Denmark
I would omit Ireland and Norway for different reasons.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin on GDP per capita? I think not. Though when it comes to selective crapola, comparing the UK to Scandinavian and Benelux micronations certainly fits the bill.
When it comes to medium/large countries in Western Europe there are five reasonable nations to compare between, in alphabetical order:
France Germany Italy Spain United Kingdom
And taking World Bank/OECD data on GDP per capita, the UK is in second place there out of five. Not top of the league, but are neighbours are not richer.
You’re not correcting for PPP, ie you are peddling crap.
That the UK should no longer bother striving to achieve a similar living standard to the rest of North West Europe and console itself that it is doing better than Italy is pretty crap, don’t you think?
No wonder most people believe the UK is in decline.
The UK is not a Benelux or Scandinavian micronation. Scotland could be if it became independent, or just London if it were measured alone, but the UK is not and the comparison is absurd. To include micronations while excluding large developed western European nations is completely absurd cherrypicking.
The UK is a large European country and should be compared against other large European countries and on that measure the UK is the second-richest large nation in Europe.
As for PPP or not, that's a complex discussion, but PPP places a lot of weight upon how it is calculated. But if you're discussing which is the 'richest' nation, then doing so in nominal terms normally makes more sense, otherwise you end up greatly inflating via PPP nations like China and India while deflating developed western nations.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
With a few more good, positive, points, Remain would have won. Not even very many.
I agree. I know it risks being accused of blaming Remainers for the Brexit vote, but there was nothing, nothing, positive about the case for remain. It was all scare tactics and doom (might be considered prophetic, but still).
At least the Remain campaign was honest. The EU is flawed but Brexit will be worse. FOM causes problems but Brexit will be worse. Membership costs us money but Brexit will be worse. No-one was standing on the Cliffs of Dover singing Ode to Joy because we were not particularly joyful. It's just that Brexit will be worse.
A mendacious pro-European campaign larded with transcontinental patriotism might have worked. But even so, Brexit will be worse.
It wasn't entirely honest. Predictions of immediate recessions, half a million unemployed etc.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
With a few more good, positive, points, Remain would have won. Not even very many.
I agree. I know it risks being accused of blaming Remainers for the Brexit vote, but there was nothing, nothing, positive about the case for remain. It was all scare tactics and doom (might be considered prophetic, but still).
But scare tactics and doom is at the heart of Conservative campaigning. And the leaders of the Remain campaign were all Conservatives. Those from other parties were marginalised, weren't they?
Always ask yourself cui bono. On this occasion, a very tousle-haired ex-PM who Owen Paterson owes a favour also would bono from a favourable decision, and no doubt doesn't want to blow credibility.
What an absolute prat Paterson is. Utterly convinced of his inability to ever do anything wrong.
And this is the chap Boris decided to blow his authority over.
Indeed although
Since Owen Paterson is not about to resume a Parliamentary career and this won't clear his name anyway, we can assume that he is not just acting in his own interest.
Wouldn't be too sure. I've known types who would persue this sort of thing well past the bounds of reason. Some important rulings can even occur that way!
I forgot to add hes a liar, since like a lot of people who fall afoul of standards regimes, including Bercow, he lied about his ability to respond and challenge things.
Clearly Patterson, who famously downplayed everything the day after Boris had put his reputation on the line for him, is the kind of self-important type who will take vindication in whatever form he can.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
You though I get the impression think its purely whether the countries economy is better that makes it good for the country. So a serious question for you here for a moment, and the hypothetical is not about reality as we would argue back and forth on that one so just an answer as if its true from you
a) The economy grows by 3% year on year but half the population has to live on governement handouts such as working tax credits with falling living standards
b) The economy doesnt grow but everyone can make enough in wages to live reasonably comfortably and while living standards arent improving nor are they getting worse.
Personally I would choose b) everytime
This implies you share one of my strongest political beliefs - that the main focus of UK governments should be on reducing our level of inequality not on chasing growth. Despite this intertwining of our very souls you have yet to agree with a single thing I've written in my 31,923 posts! It must be the way I tell em.
Just to clarify: you would rather everyone was worse off as long as the rich lost most than that everyone was better off than better off if the rich were to gain most?
That doesn't follow. My point is governments can impact wealth distribution more than they can wealth creation. Also we need to get used to lower trend growth now. This will be less of a problem if the wealth we do have as a country - which is rather a lot - is shared more equally. If we don't find a way of doing this it will condemn many millions of people to increasingly perilous financial circumstances.
Wealth redistribution heavily damages wealth creation. If you penalise the enterprising and successful and give money to the feckless and incompetent, guess what, you'll have more of the latter and less of the former.
Which is what we've been doing for the last couple of decades, and the suprising thing is that we're growing at all.
And yet, Britain’s neighbours are both more equal *and* richer.
It’s a total head-scratcher.
[Citation Needed]
GDP per capita
United Kingdom 47,334.36 USD France 43,518.54 USD
I don’t know where this comes from, but judging from your posting history this is some selective crapola.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin, and in any case the relevant comparators should be
France Germany Netherlands Belgium Sweden Denmark
I would omit Ireland and Norway for different reasons.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin on GDP per capita? I think not. Though when it comes to selective crapola, comparing the UK to Scandinavian and Benelux micronations certainly fits the bill.
When it comes to medium/large countries in Western Europe there are five reasonable nations to compare between, in alphabetical order:
France Germany Italy Spain United Kingdom
And taking World Bank/OECD data on GDP per capita, the UK is in second place there out of five. Not top of the league, but are neighbours are not richer.
You’re not correcting for PPP, ie you are peddling crap.
That the UK should no longer bother striving to achieve a similar living standard to the rest of North West Europe and console itself that it is doing better than Italy is pretty crap, don’t you think?
No wonder most people believe the UK is in decline.
The UK is not a Benelux or Scandinavian micronation. Scotland could be if it became independent, or just London if it were measured alone, but the UK is not and the comparison is absurd. To include micronations while excluding large developed western European nations is completely absurd cherrypicking.
The UK is a large European country and should be compared against other large European countries and on that measure the UK is the second-richest large nation in Europe.
As for PPP or not, that's a complex discussion, but PPP places a lot of weight upon how it is calculated. But if you're discussing which is the 'richest' nation, then doing so in nominal terms normally makes more sense, otherwise you end up greatly inflating via PPP nations like China and India while deflating developed western nations.
I am talking about standard of living, which is the critical thing for actual people. As usual you are trying to argue an alternative point that you’ve suddenly made up.
Belgium, Netherlands et al are not “micro nations”. Luxembourg is, hence it was excluded.
The original post said that redistribution was fatal to economic growth. Turns out, like trickle-down economics, that it’s an utter myth.
Your denialism is not just wrong, it prevents the UK taking measures that might restore economic growth.
Brexit is a fucking calamity and Brexiteers are morons!
I believe quite a few here voted for this madness!
Well, one thing has changed: we're no longer in the EU, so eurozealots like you now have to win a Rejoin argument. Which, given that you were so shit you couldn't even win a Remain argument, has clearly driven you insanse.
The Remain argument was somewhat hampered by Corbyn's Labour opposition providing so little leadership on the defining issue of the last decade that they were practically invisible. Any Rejoin argument would have some kind of actual leadership from the left. For this reason gravitating back towards closer EU status is inevitable surely?
Brexit is dying on its arse.
I put the pivot point as the resignation of Frost (December 21). At that point, mere ideological stagnation tipped into ideological entropy.
Brexiters who care about Brexit need to put some energy into thinking about how it might work. The clear trajectory now is for it to be salami-sliced into meaninglessness and ultimately jettisoned, probably around 2030.
I think that's right. A major problem for the Leavers is that with the ousting of Boris they lost one of the most gifted political cheerleaders of his generation. With him gone who's left to drum up enthusiasm for a project that was struggling anyway? Remainers, who have learnt a thing or two in recent years, will see their chance and slowly, but with calculation, start to pick Brexit apart. I just don't see the hard-Brexit lobby having either the personnel or the political capital to stop it.
The problem is that the Remainers are still selling anti-BREXIT lines as their main pitch.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Quite. Make a positive case (something that didn't happen in 2015-16). For all their sins, at least Brexit campaigners were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong).
With a few more good, positive, points, Remain would have won. Not even very many.
I agree. I know it risks being accused of blaming Remainers for the Brexit vote, but there was nothing, nothing, positive about the case for remain. It was all scare tactics and doom (might be considered prophetic, but still).
But scare tactics and doom is at the heart of Conservative campaigning. And the leaders of the Remain campaign were all Conservatives. Those from other parties were marginalised, weren't they?
How were they marginalised? Jeremy Corbyn and other opposition politicians were campaigning daily too.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
You though I get the impression think its purely whether the countries economy is better that makes it good for the country. So a serious question for you here for a moment, and the hypothetical is not about reality as we would argue back and forth on that one so just an answer as if its true from you
a) The economy grows by 3% year on year but half the population has to live on governement handouts such as working tax credits with falling living standards
b) The economy doesnt grow but everyone can make enough in wages to live reasonably comfortably and while living standards arent improving nor are they getting worse.
Personally I would choose b) everytime
This implies you share one of my strongest political beliefs - that the main focus of UK governments should be on reducing our level of inequality not on chasing growth. Despite this intertwining of our very souls you have yet to agree with a single thing I've written in my 31,923 posts! It must be the way I tell em.
Just to clarify: you would rather everyone was worse off as long as the rich lost most than that everyone was better off than better off if the rich were to gain most?
That doesn't follow. My point is governments can impact wealth distribution more than they can wealth creation. Also we need to get used to lower trend growth now. This will be less of a problem if the wealth we do have as a country - which is rather a lot - is shared more equally. If we don't find a way of doing this it will condemn many millions of people to increasingly perilous financial circumstances.
Wealth redistribution heavily damages wealth creation. If you penalise the enterprising and successful and give money to the feckless and incompetent, guess what, you'll have more of the latter and less of the former.
Which is what we've been doing for the last couple of decades, and the suprising thing is that we're growing at all.
And yet, Britain’s neighbours are both more equal *and* richer.
It’s a total head-scratcher.
[Citation Needed]
GDP per capita
United Kingdom 47,334.36 USD France 43,518.54 USD
I don’t know where this comes from, but judging from your posting history this is some selective crapola.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin, and in any case the relevant comparators should be
France Germany Netherlands Belgium Sweden Denmark
I would omit Ireland and Norway for different reasons.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin on GDP per capita? I think not. Though when it comes to selective crapola, comparing the UK to Scandinavian and Benelux micronations certainly fits the bill.
When it comes to medium/large countries in Western Europe there are five reasonable nations to compare between, in alphabetical order:
France Germany Italy Spain United Kingdom
And taking World Bank/OECD data on GDP per capita, the UK is in second place there out of five. Not top of the league, but are neighbours are not richer.
You’re not correcting for PPP, ie you are peddling crap.
That the UK should no longer bother striving to achieve a similar living standard to the rest of North West Europe and console itself that it is doing better than Italy is pretty crap, don’t you think?
No wonder most people believe the UK is in decline.
The UK is not a Benelux or Scandinavian micronation. Scotland could be if it became independent, or just London if it were measured alone, but the UK is not and the comparison is absurd. To include micronations while excluding large developed western European nations is completely absurd cherrypicking.
The UK is a large European country and should be compared against other large European countries and on that measure the UK is the second-richest large nation in Europe.
As for PPP or not, that's a complex discussion, but PPP places a lot of weight upon how it is calculated. But if you're discussing which is the 'richest' nation, then doing so in nominal terms normally makes more sense, otherwise you end up greatly inflating via PPP nations like China and India while deflating developed western nations.
I am talking about standard of living, which is the critical thing for actual people. As usual you are trying to argue an alternative point that you’ve suddenly made up.
Belgium, Netherlands et al are not “micro nations”. Luxembourg is, hence it was excluded.
The original post said that redistribution was fatal to economic growth. Turns out, like trickle-down economics, that it’s an utter myth.
Belgium, Netherlands etc are small nations. Much smaller than the UK. Compare like for like, either the UK with other large European nations, or the UK with all European nations at the least not just cherrypicked small ones that suit your agenda.
Whilst we concentrate on the evils Russia is doing in Ukraine, it is sad to note that al-Qaeda have not disappeared. The following is fairly horrific (sfw)
It does appear that the primary criticism of the Remain campaign is that it was too honest.
So putting forward a positive case for continued EU membership would have been dishonest? Thanks for clearing that up.
"EU membership benefits our economy and increases our influence in the world."
This was the main message. Looks positive enough to me. And whilst not being "true" in any 100% provable sense it certainly has more truth in its little finger than the whole of the fantasist mendacious Leave campaign.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
And if we were still in the eu they wouldn't have gone up as much as they did which would you rather have out of the following options a) minimum wage with the current inflation rate or b) a couple of pounds more than minimum wage with the current inflation rate. I suspect pretty much any one sane is plumping for b). Going on about inflation in this context is disingenuous as we would have had similar inflation rates if we were still in the EU as evidenced by germany and france etc.
Wages like everything obey the laws of supply and demand which is exactly why Wolffson can't get workers...he still wants to pay minimum wage and with FoM still in place he would be able to and no Brexit isnt the only reason for it. The reason for it is a smaller labour pool. The smaller labour pool has multiple reasons but the ending of FoM is certainly one of them.
A lot of people I know were minimum wage people in hospitality and before the ending of FoM the standard response if they asked for a rise was if they don't like the wage they can quit as plenty of people to replace them. Where was the economic bonus of the EU for those people? Sure people like you, rochdale and Wolffson did ok from us being in the EU, the bottom half of the country not so much
I have no idea if Brexit will make me better or worse off to be honest. In the short run worse off like everyone else because of a weaker currency and higher prices for food, energy and other stuff we import. In the long run I might end up getting paid more if the post Brexit policy is to grow the financial sector, as seems likely. I'm anti Brexit because I think it's bad for the country not because I think it is bad for me personally. If the EU is to blame for low wages I struggle to understand why the EU is home to so many high wage economies. I think it is much more to do with the Thatcherite economic model we've been pursuing for the last few decades, and which leaving the EU will have no effect on.
You though I get the impression think its purely whether the countries economy is better that makes it good for the country. So a serious question for you here for a moment, and the hypothetical is not about reality as we would argue back and forth on that one so just an answer as if its true from you
a) The economy grows by 3% year on year but half the population has to live on governement handouts such as working tax credits with falling living standards
b) The economy doesnt grow but everyone can make enough in wages to live reasonably comfortably and while living standards arent improving nor are they getting worse.
Personally I would choose b) everytime
This implies you share one of my strongest political beliefs - that the main focus of UK governments should be on reducing our level of inequality not on chasing growth. Despite this intertwining of our very souls you have yet to agree with a single thing I've written in my 31,923 posts! It must be the way I tell em.
Just to clarify: you would rather everyone was worse off as long as the rich lost most than that everyone was better off than better off if the rich were to gain most?
That doesn't follow. My point is governments can impact wealth distribution more than they can wealth creation. Also we need to get used to lower trend growth now. This will be less of a problem if the wealth we do have as a country - which is rather a lot - is shared more equally. If we don't find a way of doing this it will condemn many millions of people to increasingly perilous financial circumstances.
Wealth redistribution heavily damages wealth creation. If you penalise the enterprising and successful and give money to the feckless and incompetent, guess what, you'll have more of the latter and less of the former.
Which is what we've been doing for the last couple of decades, and the suprising thing is that we're growing at all.
And yet, Britain’s neighbours are both more equal *and* richer.
It’s a total head-scratcher.
[Citation Needed]
GDP per capita
United Kingdom 47,334.36 USD France 43,518.54 USD
I don’t know where this comes from, but judging from your posting history this is some selective crapola.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin, and in any case the relevant comparators should be
France Germany Netherlands Belgium Sweden Denmark
I would omit Ireland and Norway for different reasons.
The OECD has France ahead by a decent margin on GDP per capita? I think not. Though when it comes to selective crapola, comparing the UK to Scandinavian and Benelux micronations certainly fits the bill.
When it comes to medium/large countries in Western Europe there are five reasonable nations to compare between, in alphabetical order:
France Germany Italy Spain United Kingdom
And taking World Bank/OECD data on GDP per capita, the UK is in second place there out of five. Not top of the league, but are neighbours are not richer.
You’re not correcting for PPP, ie you are peddling crap.
That the UK should no longer bother striving to achieve a similar living standard to the rest of North West Europe and console itself that it is doing better than Italy is pretty crap, don’t you think?
No wonder most people believe the UK is in decline.
The UK is not a Benelux or Scandinavian micronation. Scotland could be if it became independent, or just London if it were measured alone, but the UK is not and the comparison is absurd. To include micronations while excluding large developed western European nations is completely absurd cherrypicking.
The UK is a large European country and should be compared against other large European countries and on that measure the UK is the second-richest large nation in Europe.
As for PPP or not, that's a complex discussion, but PPP places a lot of weight upon how it is calculated. But if you're discussing which is the 'richest' nation, then doing so in nominal terms normally makes more sense, otherwise you end up greatly inflating via PPP nations like China and India while deflating developed western nations.
I am talking about standard of living, which is the critical thing for actual people. As usual you are trying to argue an alternative point that you’ve suddenly made up.
Belgium, Netherlands et al are not “micro nations”. Luxembourg is, hence it was excluded.
The original post said that redistribution was fatal to economic growth. Turns out, like trickle-down economics, that it’s an utter myth.
Belgium, Netherlands etc are small nations. Much smaller than the UK. Compare like for like, either the UK with other large European nations, or the UK with all European nations at the least not just cherrypicked small ones that suit your agenda.
The only honest reason for excluding those countries is that the comparison is unflattering.
I note you are no longer using the false “micronation” label.
Comments
https://www.buyassociation.co.uk/2020/02/28/uk-housebuilding-output-stays-ahead-of-population-growth-rate/
But the last time anyone seriously questioned that project was 1901.
Brexit should be so lucky.
But the polling is headed one way only and there is increasing talk (which I don’t agree with) that the fix to British economic doldrums is to Rejoin.
It's reasonably likely that there will be a majority Labour government elected on what is effectively a pro-Brexit platform.
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1595039360688312320
Brexit can't "die on its arse".
It has already been and gone. The UK has already left the European Union.
Remain "died on its arse".
Rejoin WILL "die on its arse".
Owen Paterson, former MP and minister, has launched a case against the UK government at the European Court of Human Rights, complaining about the Commons process. The case has been “communicated” to the government by the court, giving the government an opportunity to respond. https://twitter.com/ECHR_CEDH/status/1595070011940429827
The people who voted for it don't like it.
The people who advocated it and campaigned for it don't like it.
Brexit is a good idea
Brexit is a good idea but badly implemented
Brexit is a good idea but badly implemented and very costly
Brexit doesn’t work because of Remainers
Brexit must be fixed because of Remainers
Brexit must be fixed by Remainers
The Peacehaven project that began in 1916 was something completely new. The attitude among some of the rich was that if it wasn't unlawful then somebody must have been guilty of a simple oversight because it was self-evidently morally wrong and against natural order for the proles to own property.
Then you had the idea that "You can't expect to get an A1 population out of C3 homes", referring to military fitness classifications. That doesn't apply today.
They need to be selling pro-Europe as their main pitch. X fixes Y.....
Brexiteers are selling anti-BREXIT lines.
We are just joining in the fun...
Meta AI presents CICERO — the first AI to achieve human-level performance in Diplomacy, a strategy game which requires building trust, negotiating and cooperating with multiple players.
https://twitter.com/MetaAI/status/1595075884502855680
Answer came there none ...
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/a-tory-minister-has-failed-to-name-one-brexit-benefit_uk_637ce878e4b0f04daf5797da
Truss and Kwasi were positive and optimistic (even if they were wrong)
The reality of Brexit as shitshow is crushing it more effectively than any campaign alternatives.
“He said GPT4 is just as exciting a Leap as GPT-3 was. Insane.”
https://twitter.com/scobleizer/status/1561074529920684034?s=21&t=GjobCEZ0VzBPDWUyD_5Hug
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11250723/Owen-Paterson-Tory-MPs-who-defect-are-stupid.html https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1595079373970890754/photo/1
Now, it may be that the UK's economic performance is the worst in the G20, bar Russia. It may also be the case that it's the best in the G20. Or, indeed, somewhere in between.
I would like to place a small bet that the UK will not be in 19th or 20th position over the next two years, although I wouldn't like to bet we'll be in the top half of the table.
Switzerland, 84,469
Denmark, 68,845
Netherlands, 69,715
Sweden, 63,877
Germany, 63,855
Belgium, 62,065
France, 56,200
United Kingdom, 55,862
Here is the GINI co-efficient from 2019.
Higher is more unequal.
Switzerland, 33.1
Denmark, 27.7
Netherlands, 29.2
Sweden, 29.3
Germany, 31.7
Belgium, 27.2
France, 32.4
United Kingdom, 35.1
The UK is poorer and more unequal than its neighbours.
That means everyone who has any power in the Labour Party thinks Brexit is s**t and if they could get us back in the EU with the wave of a magic wand they would do so tomorrow. The only reason Labour aren't currently planning to take us back into the EU or the SM is fear of upsetting voters in the Red Wall. But that means Labour will embrace any opportunities to bring us closer to the EU without angering Red Wall former-Brexit voters Labour will take them. Hence, the longer Labour remains in power, the more Brexit will get gradually salami sliced.
He is complaining that his right to respect for private/family life was breached and claiming discrimination (also h/t @JoshuaRozenberg)
As I often post, Britain is *also* the most regionally unequal of this peer group, which is why living standards in the North/Midlands are essentially on a par with Eastern European countries like Czech or the Baltics now.
https://twitter.com/sama/status/1592993284112420865?s=21&t=GjobCEZ0VzBPDWUyD_5Hug
“Probably”
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593263150824009728?s=21&t=GjobCEZ0VzBPDWUyD_5Hug
Yes, up to a point. But you might want to get rid of them if you can, or at least lessen their effects.
Let's look at that list, shall we.
US, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and Saudi Arabia are all major commodity producers. As, in a smaller way, are Argentina, Indonesia and even China. Their economies benefit to a greater or lesser extent from Ukraine invasion and elevated commodity pricing.
India and Indonesia both have big demographic bonuses (i.e. a growing proportion of working age people).
Really, our compares are: Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Korea and Japan.
Of those, we're forecast to perform the worst, which (I suspect) will be a function of the fact that we import energy and food, and that we lack long-term contracts.
And that's really it. When commodity prices dip again (and they will, because that's the nature of commodities), then the UK will benefit while many of those other countries will struggle.
We could be a few months from the Singularity. Or not
Owen Patterson taking the UK govt to court at the ECHR 🤣 had to check it wasn't April 1st.
Which is a boon for people aged about 45 and up who got to buy properties at low rates and have made out like banditos. But really sucks for 25 year olds.
Damn, I wanted them both to lose.
Labour leader reverses party’s support for freedom of movement" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-immigration-cbi-speech-rishi-sunak-brexit-eu-latest-news-bxzkpw70x
When it comes to medium/large countries in Western Europe there are five reasonable nations to compare between, in alphabetical order:
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
United Kingdom
And taking World Bank/OECD data on GDP per capita, the UK is in second place there out of five. Not top of the league, but are neighbours are not richer.
Always ask yourself cui bono. On this occasion, a very tousle-haired ex-PM who Owen Paterson owes a favour also would bono from a favourable decision, and no doubt doesn't want to blow credibility.
https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1595085618018717700?s=46&t=1oJkIHJW4EF9N-d7bViLFw
When we Rejoin I hope it isn't just because of Brexit making us the sick man of Europe again, but because of a more positive attitude to pan-Continental approaches to the problems of our times. I really don't mind at all. I hardly use physical cash for weeks at a time, money is just numbers on a card now and it matters little what currency I use.
peddling crap.
That the UK should no longer bother striving to achieve a similar living standard to the rest of North West Europe and console itself that it is doing better than Italy is pretty crap, don’t you think?
No wonder most people believe the UK is in decline.
A mendacious pro-European campaign larded with transcontinental patriotism might have worked. But even so, Brexit will be worse.
And this is the chap Boris decided to blow his authority over.
Since Owen Paterson is not about to resume a Parliamentary career and this won't clear his name anyway, we can assume that he is not just acting in his own interest.
https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1595087442876715008?s=46&t=1oJkIHJW4EF9N-d7bViLFw
I forgot to add hes a liar, since like a lot of people who fall afoul of standards regimes, including Bercow, he lied about his ability to respond and challenge things.
🚨BREAKING: Homes may suffer power issues this evening after the National Grid issued a warning on its capacity.
Follow the latest on our live blog⬇️
telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/…
Seems.. worryingly early when it’s not massively cold
The UK is a large European country and should be compared against other large European countries and on that measure the UK is the second-richest large nation in Europe.
As for PPP or not, that's a complex discussion, but PPP places a lot of weight upon how it is calculated. But if you're discussing which is the 'richest' nation, then doing so in nominal terms normally makes more sense, otherwise you end up greatly inflating via PPP nations like China and India while deflating developed western nations.
In the next 10 years, the bots will become unbelievably good. Most will only exist online, but some will be IRL.
You will think they are alive”
>>
“More like in 6–18 months. GPT-4 will achieve what you’re describing and is rumored to have already finished training.”
https://twitter.com/jackseroy/status/1591217732326162432?s=21&t=s02vR9oi70tYnKm4_blMyA
Belgium, Netherlands et al are not “micro nations”. Luxembourg is, hence it was excluded.
The original post said that redistribution was fatal to economic growth. Turns out, like trickle-down economics, that it’s an utter myth.
Your denialism is not just wrong, it prevents the UK taking measures that might restore economic growth.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/11/18/five-kilometres-of-destruction-satellite-imagery-reveals-extent-of-damage-to-civilian-convoy-in-burkina-faso/
This was the main message. Looks positive enough to me. And whilst not being "true" in any 100% provable sense it certainly has more truth in its little finger than the whole of the fantasist mendacious Leave campaign.
I note you are no longer using the false “micronation” label.
"Britain is a racist country"
Pensioners
Yes 33%
No 67%
50-64 yr olds
Yes 38%
No 62%
25-49 yr olds
Yes 43%
No 57%
18-24 yr olds 👈👈👈👈
Yes 60%
No 40%
YouGov/Policy Exchange
May 9-11 2022 (just released)
https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1595091870153162752
Perhaps pensioners who grew up in a much more racist country have a different perspective…
Rebels expecting votes on the Villiers amendments on Monday but rumours around the vote may be pulled …?