On a conciliatory note four months to the date after the result I do think europhiles have to let events run their course for a bit. We much to do to put our new house in order. We have go grieve, we have to adjust to a form of internal exile, we have to adjust to counter cultural status, we have to embrace creative minority status and we have to face up to why we lost. Certainly what ever happens they'll be no return to the status quo ante. Now u turning and staying in would be a completely different experience for Britain than having voted to Remain.
We've also got years of this to come. On the losest definitions of Brexit over a decade. The 2020 and 2025 parliamentary will be dominated by what if any of the Acquis to keep after it's been kept in UK law by the Great Repeal Act. The successor FTA will probably be concluded then need ratifying in the 2020 parliament. Then the bilateral new FTAs have the capacity to become majors battles. The battle between keeping eurosphere standards, in which case why did we bother versus globalists and deregulated. That will throw up very strange alliances.
So on the conciliatory note we all need to calm down. Not that there is anything to be calm about. There is nothing to calm about. It's just it's psychologically and psychologically impossible to stay in Fight or Flight mode for ever. You go mad or collapse if you do. Or both.
As I'm being conciliatory I'll leave the other reason to let events take their course, to prepare the counter strike, for another time.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.
Where did you get the 'Only' from?
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan. Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.
If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.
That would be my slogan. But it isn't theirs, as the resistance to "All Lives Matter" proves.
No, it's a focusing statement. The problem is not that all unarmed people are being disproportionally shot and killed by police. Black people are.
What percentage of such cases have proved to have the police at fault?
Close to zero percent of incidences of unarmed black people being shot resulted in any significant punishment fobthebpolice involved, so apparently the police in America have never made an error in killing someone.
Not that the variois police forces in America have to publish anything like stats, we are relying on estimates to work out how many people the American police shoot and kill every year.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
Well, we will know in two weeks. For the record I think you are wrong. This is not Brexit. Trump is going down to a historic defeat, and I have bet accordingly.
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.
Where did you get the 'Only' from?
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan. Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.
If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.
That would be my slogan. But it isn't theirs, as the resistance to "All Lives Matter" proves.
I would have more sympathy with BLM (and there certainly are shocking incidents involving US police) if they campaigned against the killers of mostly young black men in the gangs (both in US and UK). Mark Duggan's cousin was killed by another gang, where were the protests then? Ditto the open gang warfare in Chicago at present. Rather like "Stop the War", the protests are only in one direction.
There is a tendency to portray any black man who dies at police hands as a martyr, regardless of the merits of the case (Mark Duggan being a case in point).
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
It's amusing to see Brexiteers extolling others to "move on" and accept the new reality...
The new reality is that the Brexit Emperor has no clothes.
While the leavers wave and cheer and encourage others to join in, some of us are happy pointing at the naked man and wondering when everyone else will see it too
Of course the elections are not exactly comparable but most final EU referendum polls had Remain ahead including Populus giving Remain a ten point lead but Leave won by 4. Also a few pollsters like Rasmussen, IBID TIPP and the LA Times have Trump ahead. Party ID of early voters may be of little help too, Rasmussen for instance has Trump winning more Democrats than Hillary is winning Republicans. Just as some white working class Labour voters voted Leave so some white blue collar Democrats may vote Trump. If African American turnout is down on 2012 with Obama not on the ballot but white working class turnout is up it could be a long night. In the end it may be the libertarian vote which makes the difference, in the UK it voted Leave while in the US it will vote Johnson rather than Trump.
"But Britain's problem, both inside and outside the EU, was that it didn't know what it wanted. It knew what it didn't want, but that's a very different thing."
I disagree. It wants a common market but not a common country. It thought that was on offer but it wasn't.
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.
Where did you get the 'Only' from?
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan. Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.
If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.
That would be my slogan. But it isn't theirs, as the resistance to "All Lives Matter" proves.
I would have more sympathy with BLM (and there certainly are shocking incidents involving US police) if they campaigned against the killers of mostly young black men in the gangs (both in US and UK). Mark Duggan's cousin was killed by another gang, where were the protests then? Ditto the open gang warfare in Chicago at present. Rather like "Stop the War", the protests are only in one direction.
There is a tendency to portray any black man who dies at police hands as a martyr, regardless of the merits of the case (Mark Duggan being a case in point).
The problem in the US is that the merits of the case have frequently been invented by the police.
As with any loose pressure group, many BLM members go too far; and their UK variant seem like a bunch of fools. But I believe the US version do have genuine grievances at their core, and it might - just might - lead to better policing.
On a conciliatory note four months to the date after the result I do think europhiles have to let events run their course for a bit. We much to do to put our new house in order. We have go grieve, we have to adjust to a form of internal exile, we have to adjust to counter cultural status, we have to embrace creative minority status and we have to face up to why we lost. Certainly what ever happens they'll be no return to the status quo ante. Now u turning and staying in would be a completely different experience for Britain than having voted to Remain.
We've also got years of this to come. On the losest definitions of Brexit over a decade. The 2020 and 2025 parliamentary will be dominated by what if any of the Acquis to keep after it's been kept in UK law by the Great Repeal Act. The successor FTA will probably be concluded then need ratifying in the 2020 parliament. Then the bilateral new FTAs have the capacity to become majors battles. The battle between keeping eurosphere standards, in which case why did we bother versus globalists and deregulated. That will throw up very strange alliances.
So on the conciliatory note we all need to calm down. Not that there is anything to be calm about. There is nothing to calm about. It's just it's psychologically and psychologically impossible to stay in Fight or Flight mode for ever. You go mad or collapse if you do. Or both.
As I'm being conciliatory I'll leave the other reason to let events take their course, to prepare the counter strike, for another time.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
The other issue leading to *unfocused* anger from europhiles is the vacuum. May has given us to bits of clear information ( ECA repeal and the end to FoM. ) and two bits we can reasonably infer from other stuff. ( That we are leaving the Customs Union and Membership of the SM. ) So at the moment all we have to oppose is leaving which is currently useless. The result was what it was. When the government finally gets round to deciding what it means things will be far more focused. Traditional campaigning focused on policy outcomes will resume. In addition the Leave/Remain badges will start to blur. At the grey area edges many Remain voters won't object to chunks of Brexit. Many Leave voters will be horrified by specifics. The situation will allow churn of voters and coalitions. While this will be disorientating in it's self it will at least break down the binary nature of the debate.
While the leavers wave and cheer and encourage others to join in, some of us are happy pointing at the naked man and wondering when everyone else will see it too
Shouldn't that have been done before the referendum?
Sort of true actually. The declining birth rate in Europe is a major ongoing demographic problem that the US and UK don't suffer from.
Not a problem France has, of course.
It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.
Don't they have huge tax incentives for middle class families in France though? IIRC you said previously that a family with three kids gets our equivalanet of a household personal allowance of €50-60k, below which they don't pay income tax.
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)
Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.
It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.
Do the French socialists rail against these tax allowances? I can't imagine how much wailing there would be from Labour if such things were proposed here...
Of course not! In France, that is the way things have always been done.
As an aside, I was reading about benefits in Germany (here: http://www.expatica.com/de/about/Guide-to-German-social-security_100923.html) and it would appear that you need to have contributed to the various social security schemes for a year before you are eligible for any benefits. Why we have a different system astonishes me.
Mr. P, the Government and Vote Leave are not the same thing.
Also, we're still in the EU.
Also also, there will be another election, either shortly after or (less likely) shortly before we leave, during which people will be able to vote for what they want the government to do [this is how democracy works].
Still, nice of Streeting to let us know he's a jester.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Which is as nothing compared to the Princeton election consortium who have Hilary on 97% or 99% chance depending on the model. They have just as good a record as Nate (uses the same foundation of state polling)
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
Or to put it another way, the dozen polls in the week before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave leading in nine of them, in the dozen before the 23rd, Remain led in nine of them. That suggests that Cox's murder by a 'madman' almost certainly had a shy Leave effect.
If you want to equate the effect of a single, ghastly act to sustained months of campaigning by a ghastly candidate..
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
"No major economy relies on financial services like Britain’s, where the sector provides almost a tenth of GDP, but about 30 per cent of all exports. To give that latter figure some context, the G7’s silver medallist in this discipline is the United States with barely 15 per cent. Any shrinkage in GDP caused by the loss of the banks must affect state spending on such fripperies as the NHS, education and benefits. As the damage done to the capital radiated to the provinces, the fall-out would probably be at its most lethal in the most deprived and determinedly pro-Brexit areas. If the referendum was much more a vote against smug, wealthy London than against a remote and abstract Brussels, a diminished City and the effects of that would offer a peculiarly brutal tutorial about being careful what you wish for."
And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???
This is from the latest ONS Pink Book
2015 Exports Financial Services £50.769bn Total Services £225.485bn Total Exports £510.340bn
Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.
You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.
But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.
Where did you get the 'Only' from?
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan. Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.
If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.
That would be my slogan. But it isn't theirs, as the resistance to "All Lives Matter" proves.
I would have more sympathy with BLM (and there certainly are shocking incidents involving US police) if they campaigned against the killers of mostly young black men in the gangs (both in US and UK). Mark Duggan's cousin was killed by another gang, where were the protests then? Ditto the open gang warfare in Chicago at present. Rather like "Stop the War", the protests are only in one direction.
There is a tendency to portray any black man who dies at police hands as a martyr, regardless of the merits of the case (Mark Duggan being a case in point).
Exactly.
And the combination of these two makes OBLM very dangerous.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
You must be, in that case, positively slavering then at the 5/1 value bet on BF for Trump at the moment.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
Mr. P, the Government and Vote Leave are not the same thing.
Also, we're still in the EU.
Also also, there will be another election, either shortly after or (less likely) shortly before we leave, during which people will be able to vote for what they want the government to do [this is how democracy works].
Still, nice of Streeting to let us know he's a jester.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)
Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.
It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.
Do the French socialists rail against these tax allowances? I can't imagine how much wailing there would be from Labour if such things were proposed here...
Of course not! In France, that is the way things have always been done.
As an aside, I was reading about benefits in Germany (here: http://www.expatica.com/de/about/Guide-to-German-social-security_100923.html) and it would appear that you need to have contributed to the various social security schemes for a year before you are eligible for any benefits. Why we have a different system astonishes me.
There's lots in this book about where things went wrong:
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
"No major economy relies on financial services like Britain’s, where the sector provides almost a tenth of GDP, but about 30 per cent of all exports. To give that latter figure some context, the G7’s silver medallist in this discipline is the United States with barely 15 per cent. Any shrinkage in GDP caused by the loss of the banks must affect state spending on such fripperies as the NHS, education and benefits. As the damage done to the capital radiated to the provinces, the fall-out would probably be at its most lethal in the most deprived and determinedly pro-Brexit areas. If the referendum was much more a vote against smug, wealthy London than against a remote and abstract Brussels, a diminished City and the effects of that would offer a peculiarly brutal tutorial about being careful what you wish for."
And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???
This is from the latest ONS Pink Book
2015 Exports Financial Services £50.769bn Total Services £225.485bn Total Exports £510.340bn
Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.
You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.
But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.
Cross-checking with the world bank statistics, it looks like the percentages in the quote (which comes from today's Independent) are percentages of services exports rather than total exports (the 2015 world bank figure for the U.K. being 28% with the US on 16%).
Given that our services exports are probably also at the upper end of the range, the qualitative point being made - that the UK is far more reliant upon financial service exports than any other economy - is clearly right, even if the absolute levels given are too high.
"No major economy relies on financial services like Britain’s, where the sector provides almost a tenth of GDP, but about 30 per cent of all exports. To give that latter figure some context, the G7’s silver medallist in this discipline is the United States with barely 15 per cent. Any shrinkage in GDP caused by the loss of the banks must affect state spending on such fripperies as the NHS, education and benefits. As the damage done to the capital radiated to the provinces, the fall-out would probably be at its most lethal in the most deprived and determinedly pro-Brexit areas. If the referendum was much more a vote against smug, wealthy London than against a remote and abstract Brussels, a diminished City and the effects of that would offer a peculiarly brutal tutorial about being careful what you wish for."
And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???
This is from the latest ONS Pink Book
2015 Exports Financial Services £50.769bn Total Services £225.485bn Total Exports £510.340bn
Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.
You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.
But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.
The data we really need is the Gross Value Added export data (which I'm sure is around somewhere, but I don't have it to hand). This basically looks only at that portion of our exports that is value added in the UK. So, to give an example, the UK currently imports gas from Norway, and re-exports it to Ireland. Recognising the whole transaction swells the export and import numbers. Looking at GVA, we'd just capture the fee we get from the Irish for bringing them Norwegian gas.
A slightly less extreme example is automotive. We export a large portion of the cars we build in the UK. But the GVA, if I remember correctly, is only in the high 30s. 60% of the cost of a car is imported: gearbox, tyres, etc.
For financial services (and indeed services generally) GVA is close to 100%. When you sell banking services, you don't need to import something first.
Mr Jones also said the final “exit deal” should also be subject to votes in all four UK parliaments and assemblies – a position backed by Ms Sturgeon.
The options will be 'The Negotiated EU deal' or 'No Deal' (aka chaotic Brexit) - I can imagine Sturgeon voting it down, the better to further independence - irrespective of the contents of the deal......why would May want to risk the fortunes of the other 92% of the UK on the whims of a party created to bring about its destruction?
Is Foreign Affairs a devolved competence to any of the regional parliaments ?
No. If they want to have a vote, that's fine but this time, it really would be just an advisory/indicative one.
Hopefully May will be as stupid and Little Englanderish as the frothers on here.
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)
Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.
It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.
Do the French socialists rail against these tax allowances? I can't imagine how much wailing there would be from Labour if such things were proposed here...
Of course not! In France, that is the way things have always been done.
As an aside, I was reading about benefits in Germany (here: http://www.expatica.com/de/about/Guide-to-German-social-security_100923.html) and it would appear that you need to have contributed to the various social security schemes for a year before you are eligible for any benefits. Why we have a different system astonishes me.
There's lots in this book about where things went wrong:
Mr Jones also said the final “exit deal” should also be subject to votes in all four UK parliaments and assemblies – a position backed by Ms Sturgeon.
The options will be 'The Negotiated EU deal' or 'No Deal' (aka chaotic Brexit) - I can imagine Sturgeon voting it down, the better to further independence - irrespective of the contents of the deal......why would May want to risk the fortunes of the other 92% of the UK on the whims of a party created to bring about its destruction?
Is Foreign Affairs a devolved competence to any of the regional parliaments ?
I don't think there's much competence in the handling of foreign affairs!
In her much vaunted 'Tour of Europe' Sturgeon's meeting with the German Foreign Minister Junior Minister took place in The German Foreign Office a restaurant.....something the SNP government, unaccountably, didn't publicise.....
Tories doth protest just a bit too much, ranting day in and day out about new referendum, think the yoons are just a little bit afraid, toilet roll sales soaring.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final ike Brexit.
Or to put it another way, the dozen polls in the week before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave leading in nine of them, in the dozen before the 23rd, Remain led in nine of them. That suggests that Cox's murder by a 'madman' almost certainly had a shy Leave effect.
If you want to equate the effect of a single, ghastly act to sustained months of campaigning by a ghastly candidate..
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2%
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
Or to put it another way, the dozen polls in the week before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave leading in nine of them, in the dozen before the 23rd, Remain led in nine of them. That suggests that Cox's murder by a 'madman' almost certainly had a shy Leave effect.
If you want to equate the effect of a single, ghastly act to sustained months of campaigning by a ghastly candidate..
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
Or to put it another way, the dozen polls in the week before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave leading in nine of them, in the dozen before the 23rd, Remain led in nine of them. That suggests that Cox's murder by a 'madman' almost certainly had a shy Leave effect.
If you want to equate the effect of a single, ghastly act to sustained months of campaigning by a ghastly candidate..
It was turnout of the white working class which was key in EU ref and may be significant in the US. The 'shy' Leaver effect was less significant though gropegate may have made Trump supporters more reticent as the Jo Cox murder did with Leave voters
"No major economy relies on financial services like Britain’s, where the sector provides almost a tenth of GDP, but about 30 per cent of all exports. To give that latter figure some context, the G7’s silver medallist in this discipline is the United States with barely 15 per cent. Any shrinkage in GDP caused by the loss of the banks must affect state spending on such fripperies as the NHS, education and benefits. As the damage done to the capital radiated to the provinces, the fall-out would probably be at its most lethal in the most deprived and determinedly pro-Brexit areas. If the referendum was much more a vote against smug, wealthy London than against a remote and abstract Brussels, a diminished City and the effects of that would offer a peculiarly brutal tutorial about being careful what you wish for."
And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???
This is from the latest ONS Pink Book
2015 Exports Financial Services £50.769bn Total Services £225.485bn Total Exports £510.340bn
Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.
You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.
But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.
The data we really need is the Gross Value Added export data (which I'm sure is around somewhere, but I don't have it to hand). This basically looks only at that portion of our exports that is value added in the UK. So, to give an example, the UK currently imports gas from Norway, and re-exports it to Ireland. Recognising the whole transaction swells the export and import numbers. Looking at GVA, we'd just capture the fee we get from the Irish for bringing them Norwegian gas.
A slightly less extreme example is automotive. We export a large portion of the cars we build in the UK. But the GVA, if I remember correctly, is only in the high 30s. 60% of the cost of a car is imported: gearbox, tyres, etc.
For financial services (and indeed services generally) GVA is close to 100%. When you sell banking services, you don't need to import something first.
The other issue leading to *unfocused* anger from europhiles is the vacuum. May has given us to bits of clear information ( ECA repeal and the end to FoM. ) and two bits we can reasonably infer from other stuff. ( That we are leaving the Customs Union and Membership of the SM. ) So at the moment all we have to oppose is leaving which is currently useless. The result was what it was. When the government finally gets round to deciding what it means things will be far more focused. Traditional campaigning focused on policy outcomes will resume. In addition the Leave/Remain badges will start to blur. At the grey area edges many Remain voters won't object to chunks of Brexit. Many Leave voters will be horrified by specifics. The situation will allow churn of voters and coalitions. While this will be disorientating in it's self it will at least break down the binary nature of the debate.
"No major economy relies on financial services like Britain’s, where the sector provides almost a tenth of GDP, but about 30 per cent of all exports. To give that latter figure some context, the G7’s silver medallist in this discipline is the United States with barely 15 per cent. Any shrinkage in GDP caused by the loss of the banks must affect state spending on such fripperies as the NHS, education and benefits. As the damage done to the capital radiated to the provinces, the fall-out would probably be at its most lethal in the most deprived and determinedly pro-Brexit areas. If the referendum was much more a vote against smug, wealthy London than against a remote and abstract Brussels, a diminished City and the effects of that would offer a peculiarly brutal tutorial about being careful what you wish for."
And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???
This is from the latest ONS Pink Book
2015 Exports Financial Services £50.769bn Total Services £225.485bn Total Exports £510.340bn
Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.
You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.
But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.
Cross-checking with the world bank statistics, it looks like the percentages in the quote (which comes from today's Independent) are percentages of services exports rather than total exports (the 2015 world bank figure for the U.K. being 28% with the US on 16%).
Given that our services exports are probably also at the upper end of the range, the qualitative point being made - that the UK is far more reliant upon financial service exports than any other economy - is clearly right, even if the absolute levels given are too high.
Only a fool would deny the contribution Financial Services makes to the UK economy but there are certainly vested interests who attempt to make it appear more important than it is (and the same can be said about many other things than Financial Services).
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
Indeed Silver got the 2014 mid terms, the 2015 UK general election, EU ref and the GOP primaries wrong
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
As an aside, there are excellent Eurozone PMIs out this morning. Sadly Markit has stopped doing preliminary UK PMIs so we'll have to wait until the start of November to see how we're doing.
Quoting the Markit release: "The eurozone economy showed renewed signs of life at the start of the fourth quarter, enjoying its strongest expansion so far this year with the promise of more to come. With backlogs of work accumulating at the fastest rate for over five years, business activity growth and hiring look set to accelerate further as we head towards the end of the year."
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
I'm sure he knows what he's doing.
Nationalists are currently trying to push restrictions on immigration, at the cost of freedom to trade, on the basis that it's what the Leave side said it was going to do in the campaign. To counter that point, the free-trade side are pointing out the other things that the Leave side said it was going to do during the campaign, but forgot about once the voting was done.
If the nationalists want to respond that what was said in the campaign is irrelevant and all that counts is what was specifically written on the referendum ballot, that works fine for the free-traders.
"No major economy relies on financial services like Britain’s, where the sector provides almost a tenth of GDP, but about 30 per cent of all exports. To give that latter figure some context, the G7’s silver medallist in this discipline is the United States with barely 15 per cent. Any shrinkage in GDP caused by the loss of the banks must affect state spending on such fripperies as the NHS, education and benefits. As the damage done to the capital radiated to the provinces, the fall-out would probably be at its most lethal in the most deprived and determinedly pro-Brexit areas. If the referendum was much more a vote against smug, wealthy London than against a remote and abstract Brussels, a diminished City and the effects of that would offer a peculiarly brutal tutorial about being careful what you wish for."
And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???
This is from the latest ONS Pink Book
2015 Exports Financial Services £50.769bn Total Services £225.485bn Total Exports £510.340bn
Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.
You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.
But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.
The data we really need is the Gross Value Added export data (which I'm sure is around somewhere, but I don't have it to hand). This basically looks only at that portion of our exports that is value added in the UK. So, to give an example, the UK currently imports gas from Norway, and re-exports it to Ireland. Recognising the whole transaction swells the export and import numbers. Looking at GVA, we'd just capture the fee we get from the Irish for bringing them Norwegian gas.
A slightly less extreme example is automotive. We export a large portion of the cars we build in the UK. But the GVA, if I remember correctly, is only in the high 30s. 60% of the cost of a car is imported: gearbox, tyres, etc.
For financial services (and indeed services generally) GVA is close to 100%. When you sell banking services, you don't need to import something first.
That makes sense - but wouldn't it mean that the economy is much less dominated by international trade than is normally reported ?
It would be interesting to see GVA calculations for all sectors of the economy and workforce.
I suspect most of the directors of the FTSE100 would have negative GVA.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
He admits his problem was he ignored the polling and went with his own feelings. The opposite seems to be true here, were those thinking ( Hoping???) for a Trump win are ignoring the polling...
That makes sense - but wouldn't it mean that the economy is much less dominated by international trade than is normally reported ?
It would be interesting to see GVA calculations for all sectors of the economy and workforce.
I suspect most of the directors of the FTSE100 would have negative GVA.
Yes, and probably
The ONS does GVA data. I have a lot of work to do today, but I'll see if I can find it... That being said, your underlying point is (I'm sure) absolutely right. There's no way financial services is 30% of exports.
If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
I fail to see how you hope to secure a Brexit settlement by consensus. Could you advise us of a process that would achieve a settlement that would still secure Brexit, on the best terms, and in a timely manner?
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built.
Addendum: Following yesterday's conversation on here: For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.
Big problem is that the UK is not just a country , it is a union and Westminster aka England ignoring Scotland and the other parts of the UK is not democracy and most certainly not the will of the countries outside England.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
Indeed Silver got the 2014 mid terms, the 2015 UK general election, EU ref and the GOP primaries wrong
And yet we should rely on RAS over the other pollsters, when RAS last got something right 8 years ago....
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
It was turnout of the white working class which was key in EU ref and may be significant in the US. The 'shy' Leaver effect was less significant though gropegate may have made Trump supporters more reticent as the Jo Cox murder did with Leave voters
Afaics Hillary led in eight out of the twelve national polls before 'gropegate'.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
He admits his problem was he ignored the polling and went with his own feelings. The opposite seems to be true here, were those thinking ( Hoping???) for a Trump win are ignoring the polling...
I do hope that they are betting on their preferred result. If logical argument can't convince them then maybe losing a few quid would.
Sort of true actually. The declining birth rate in Europe is a major ongoing demographic problem that the US and UK don't suffer from.
Not a problem France has, of course.
It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.
Don't they have huge tax incentives for middle class families in France though? IIRC you said previously that a family with three kids gets our equivalanet of a household personal allowance of €50-60k, below which they don't pay income tax.
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)
Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.
It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.
Do the French socialists rail against these tax allowances? I can't imagine how much wailing there would be from Labour if such things were proposed here...
Of course not! In France, that is the way things have always been done.
As an aside, I was reading about benefits in Germany (here: http://www.expatica.com/de/about/Guide-to-German-social-security_100923.html) and it would appear that you need to have contributed to the various social security schemes for a year before you are eligible for any benefits. Why we have a different system astonishes me.
Remarkable. And very admirable.
Could you imagine the Labour sisterhood screaming about this driscriminating against poor women and single mothers....
Mr. G, do you consider all those who voted Leave to be stupid/Little Englanders?
Not at all MD, I am pointing at the idiots on here who constantly rant about Scotland and how they should have no say. Scotland is devolved and its position should be Scotland's position , not just what England votes for, that is the major issue of this unequal union. Sinc eteh late seventies we have had crap right wing governments who have given scant care to opinions in Scotland and just ignored what peopel wanted , which is why we are where we are today. That attitude is prevalent on here from the overpriveleged braying Tory donkeys.
At the grey area edges many Remain voters won't object to chunks of Brexit. Many Leave voters will be horrified by specifics.
Agree - that's when its going to start to get really interesting - and of course there are two (or 28) sides in the Brexit negotiation - there must be a reasonable chance the EU does something over the next two years that does not raise itself in the estimation of British voters...
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
Indeed Silver got the 2014 mid terms, the 2015 UK general election, EU ref and the GOP primaries wrong
And yet we should rely on RAS over the other pollsters, when RAS last got something right 8 years ago....
I listented to a 538 podcast - it was pointed out that the 15% or roughly 1 in 7 chance their models give to trump means that we should expect someone in trump's position to win every 28 years or so (7 elections) two or three times in an average lifetime
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
£350million per week was never available to go to the NHS, it was a deliberate cynical lie. Each household has already lost some money, every time they fill up the car or buy foreign holiday money. Pretty soon the fall in the pound and rise in transport costs will affect the price of pretty much everything.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
He admits his problem was he ignored the polling and went with his own feelings. The opposite seems to be true here, were those thinking ( Hoping???) for a Trump win are ignoring the polling...
I do hope that they are betting on their preferred result. If logical argument can't convince them then maybe losing a few quid would.
I was firmly of the opinion we were headed for NOM at GE 2015. Fortunately I traded out a couplenofnwre
Could you imagine the Labour sisterhood screaming about this driscriminating against poor women and single mothers....
They might even buy a pink bus to publicise it.
It also partially explains why Germany, despite lower unemployment than us, has much less of an issue with low skilled migrants.
Given our benefits system remains attractive to a lot of low skilled non-EU immigrants, perhaps we should think about how to reform it, rather than assuming Brexit will solve all our problems.
Could you imagine the Labour sisterhood screaming about this driscriminating against poor women and single mothers....
They might even buy a pink bus to publicise it.
It also partially explains why Germany, despite lower unemployment than us, has much less of an issue with low skilled migrants.
Given our benefits system remains attractive to a lot of low skilled non-EU immigrants, perhaps we should think about how to reform it, rather than assuming Brexit will solve all our problems.
My rule of thumb for benefits reform should be that cash handouts and setting up new metrics/bodies to administer them should be the last resort.
Surely more could be delivered via the tax system, especially with monthly PAYE submissions...
"No major economy relies on financial services like Britain’s, where the sector provides almost a tenth of GDP, but about 30 per cent of all exports. To give that latter figure some context, the G7’s silver medallist in this discipline is the United States with barely 15 per cent. Any shrinkage in GDP caused by the loss of the banks must affect state spending on such fripperies as the NHS, education and benefits. As the damage done to the capital radiated to the provinces, the fall-out would probably be at its most lethal in the most deprived and determinedly pro-Brexit areas. If the referendum was much more a vote against smug, wealthy London than against a remote and abstract Brussels, a diminished City and the effects of that would offer a peculiarly brutal tutorial about being careful what you wish for."
And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???
This is from the latest ONS Pink Book
2015 Exports Financial Services £50.769bn Total Services £225.485bn Total Exports £510.340bn
Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.
You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.
But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.
Cross-checking with the world bank statistics, it looks like the percentages in the quote (which comes from today's Independent) are percentages of services exports rather than total exports (the 2015 world bank figure for the U.K. being 28% with the US on 16%).
Given that our services exports are probably also at the upper end of the range, the qualitative point being made - that the UK is far more reliant upon financial service exports than any other economy - is clearly right, even if the absolute levels given are too high.
Only a fool would deny the contribution Financial Services makes to the UK economy but there are certainly vested interests who attempt to make it appear more important than it is (and the same can be said about many other things than Financial Services).
Well I have pointed out the apparent error to the Independent's reporter, and I will see if they trouble to reply.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
£350million per week was never available to go to the NHS, it was a deliberate cynical lie. Each household has already lost some money, every time they fill up the car or buy foreign holiday money. Pretty soon the fall in the pound and rise in transport costs will affect the price of pretty much everything.
Right, we shouldn't have included the rebate, and should have talked more in terms of the net figure as being available for the NHS. The specific suggestion was actually £100m/week should be spent out of the net contribution.
£4,300/household wasn't based on the impact of a short-term fall in the currency, it was based on the economy growing much more slowly post-Brexit. Now, you may believe that will be the case, but the model used to reach that figure was awful beyond belief.
So the Trump rampers only have 2 polls now with a Trump lead...
I have this peculiar feeling .... it comes upon me every four years in late October .... that Rasmussen and IBD/TIPP will trend to the average of the Clinton lead by polling day ....
£4,300/household wasn't based on the impact of a short-term fall in the currency, it was based on the economy growing much more slowly post-Brexit. Now, you may believe that will be the case, but the model used to reach that figure was awful beyond belief.
And not only that, it was signed off by civil servants at the Treasury. As a civil servant myself, I think that is a disgrace.
Apologies - I had the numbers reversed in my earlier post !! .... so used to seeing Trump ahead in this tracker ..
538 adjusted this will be Clinton +6.
Big Jump in the young voters. Artificially large, highly correlated with pother demos jump, I suspect weightings again.
@JackW did you see the Princeton Election Consortium article on the LA times poll. Reweighed to standard weightings it almost perfectly matches the RCP poll average.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
The difference is that 350 million was a deliberate lie. 4,300 is reasonably accurate. The average family income is roughly 43,000 and the currency has devalued 10%. When Turkey doesn't join...the NHS has a crisis and/or the economy goes pear shaped 17,000,000 pitchforks will come out and they're they're going to be aimed squarely at Boris Johnson's backside
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
Of course it won't happen it's just a good way of reminding everyone what Leave promised us during the campaign and to keep embarrassing them with it.
£4,300/household wasn't based on the impact of a short-term fall in the currency, it was based on the economy growing much more slowly post-Brexit. Now, you may believe that will be the case, but the model used to reach that figure was awful beyond belief.
And not only that, it was signed off by civil servants at the Treasury. As a civil servant myself, I think that is a disgrace.
Appalling indeed - Hammond needs to stay at the Treasury to depoliticise it.
If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
And what would one of those look like?
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.
And would that include Remainers not delighting in the fall of the pound (even if most of their predictions have yet come to pass)?
I look forward to constructive engagement from Remainers beyond 'we told you so' and 'the worst is yet to come'.....
Constructive engagement from those of us who voted Remain is impossible when there is nothing to engage with from government. The dithering and disagreement at the heart of government fosters disagreement from the country at large.
We are 4 months on but no wiser as to what "Brexit means Brexit" means.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it. If they stay schtum you complain about being none the wiser, if they reveal all you laugh as they get a lousy deal from a compromised negotiation.
May said no running commentary and no revealing the government position for a reason, in fact exactly the same reason as Merkel said just the same thing only a few days ago.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
£350million per week was never available to go to the NHS, it was a deliberate cynical lie. Each household has already lost some money, every time they fill up the car or buy foreign holiday money. Pretty soon the fall in the pound and rise in transport costs will affect the price of pretty much everything.
Right, we shouldn't have included the rebate, and should have talked more in terms of the net figure as being available for the NHS. The specific suggestion was actually £100m/week should be spent out of the net contribution.
£4,300/household wasn't based on the impact of a short-term fall in the currency, it was based on the economy growing much more slowly post-Brexit. Now, you may believe that will be the case, but the model used to reach that figure was awful beyond belief.
'Your lies were worse than our lies' is not a great campaign idea.....which is where we seem to be....
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
Of course it won't happen it's just a good way of reminding everyone what Leave promised us during the campaign and to keep embarrassing them with it.
Alternatively it is a good way of reminding everyone that we voted Leave.
Remainers think everything helps their cause of staying in the EU. In reality, the cause has already sailed.
Comments
We've also got years of this to come. On the losest definitions of Brexit over a decade. The 2020 and 2025 parliamentary will be dominated by what if any of the Acquis to keep after it's been kept in UK law by the Great Repeal Act. The successor FTA will probably be concluded then need ratifying in the 2020 parliament. Then the bilateral new FTAs have the capacity to become majors battles. The battle between keeping eurosphere standards, in which case why did we bother versus globalists and deregulated. That will throw up very strange alliances.
So on the conciliatory note we all need to calm down. Not that there is anything to be calm about. There is nothing to calm about. It's just it's psychologically and psychologically impossible to stay in Fight or Flight mode for ever. You go mad or collapse if you do. Or both.
As I'm being conciliatory I'll leave the other reason to let events take their course, to prepare the counter strike, for another time.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
Trump does still have slender leads in some national opinion polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
Not that the variois police forces in America have to publish anything like stats, we are relying on estimates to work out how many people the American police shoot and kill every year.
It's amusing to see Brexiteers extolling others to "move on" and accept the new reality...
The new reality is that the Brexit Emperor has no clothes.
While the leavers wave and cheer and encourage others to join in, some of us are happy pointing at the naked man and wondering when everyone else will see it too
"But Britain's problem, both inside and outside the EU, was that it didn't know what it wanted. It knew what it didn't want, but that's a very different thing."
I disagree. It wants a common market but not a common country. It thought that was on offer but it wasn't.
As with any loose pressure group, many BLM members go too far; and their UK variant seem like a bunch of fools. But I believe the US version do have genuine grievances at their core, and it might - just might - lead to better policing.
Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37748537/justin-bieber-walks-off-stage-after-asking-fans-to-stop-screaming
As an aside, I was reading about benefits in Germany (here: http://www.expatica.com/de/about/Guide-to-German-social-security_100923.html) and it would appear that you need to have contributed to the various social security schemes for a year before you are eligible for any benefits. Why we have a different system astonishes me.
Too many were busy cheering and waving their flags to look
Also, we're still in the EU.
Also also, there will be another election, either shortly after or (less likely) shortly before we leave, during which people will be able to vote for what they want the government to do [this is how democracy works].
Still, nice of Streeting to let us know he's a jester.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
If you want to equate the effect of a single, ghastly act to sustained months of campaigning by a ghastly candidate..
A story too good to be true – The toy smuggler of #Aleppo exposed by #Finland's top paper as fraud & extremist https://t.co/soVAKEpxcz
This is from the latest ONS Pink Book
2015 Exports
Financial Services £50.769bn
Total Services £225.485bn
Total Exports £510.340bn
Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.
You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.
But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/3tradeinservicesthepinkbook2016
And the combination of these two makes OBLM very dangerous.
His recent form has been very good.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Victory-British-Realities-1945-50/dp/0333480457/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477295825&sr=1-1&keywords=the+lost+victory
"An almost irresistible indictments of post-war thinking delivered with Barnett''s customary panache and argumentative power." Martin Kettle, Guardian
"The most compelling and convincing indictment of the Attlee Government we are ever likely to see." The Times
Given that our services exports are probably also at the upper end of the range, the qualitative point being made - that the UK is far more reliant upon financial service exports than any other economy - is clearly right, even if the absolute levels given are too high.
A slightly less extreme example is automotive. We export a large portion of the cars we build in the UK. But the GVA, if I remember correctly, is only in the high 30s. 60% of the cost of a car is imported: gearbox, tyres, etc.
For financial services (and indeed services generally) GVA is close to 100%. When you sell banking services, you don't need to import something first.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
Silver's all at sea.
Quoting the Markit release: "The eurozone economy showed renewed signs of life at the start of the fourth quarter, enjoying its strongest expansion so far this year with the promise of more to come. With backlogs of work accumulating at the fastest rate for over five years, business activity growth and hiring look set to accelerate further as we head towards the end of the year."
Nationalists are currently trying to push restrictions on immigration, at the cost of freedom to trade, on the basis that it's what the Leave side said it was going to do in the campaign. To counter that point, the free-trade side are pointing out the other things that the Leave side said it was going to do during the campaign, but forgot about once the voting was done.
If the nationalists want to respond that what was said in the campaign is irrelevant and all that counts is what was specifically written on the referendum ballot, that works fine for the free-traders.
It would be interesting to see GVA calculations for all sectors of the economy and workforce.
I suspect most of the directors of the FTSE100 would have negative GVA.
The ONS does GVA data. I have a lot of work to do today, but I'll see if I can find it...
That being said, your underlying point is (I'm sure) absolutely right. There's no way financial services is 30% of exports.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
edit: and 73 out of 95 of subsequent ones.
Could you imagine the Labour sisterhood screaming about this driscriminating against poor women and single mothers....
They might even buy a pink bus to publicise it.
That attitude is prevalent on here from the overpriveleged braying Tory donkeys.
Clinton 43.8 .. Trump 45.1
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
IMO, the fact that he (well, he AND pollsters) missed Sanders winning michigan is far more damning than anything he did or didn't say about trump.
Each household has already lost some money, every time they fill up the car or buy foreign holiday money. Pretty soon the fall in the pound and rise in transport costs will affect the price of pretty much everything.
Mr. P, that's a question for Boris, not for the Government.
Answer is there none ....
Given our benefits system remains attractive to a lot of low skilled non-EU immigrants, perhaps we should think about how to reform it, rather than assuming Brexit will solve all our problems.
Clinton 45.1 .. Trump 43.8
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Apologies - I had the numbers reversed in my earlier post !! .... so used to seeing Trump ahead in this tracker ..
538 adjusted this will be Clinton +6.
Surely more could be delivered via the tax system, especially with monthly PAYE submissions...
£4,300/household wasn't based on the impact of a short-term fall in the currency, it was based on the economy growing much more slowly post-Brexit. Now, you may believe that will be the case, but the model used to reach that figure was awful beyond belief.
@JackW did you see the Princeton Election Consortium article on the LA times poll. Reweighed to standard weightings it almost perfectly matches the RCP poll average.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/united-states-post-race-analysis-2016.html
May said no running commentary and no revealing the government position for a reason, in fact exactly the same reason as Merkel said just the same thing only a few days ago.
Remainers think everything helps their cause of staying in the EU. In reality, the cause has already sailed.