I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
O/T Barnier is clearly aiming for the EC President job after Juncker goes.
If he is, that's good news for Britain. He'll want a deal that he can sell as a success.
I would agree with that. More precisely I think he wants Britain to leave the EU with as little damage to the EU as possible. It's not quite the same, but a deal is part of that damage minimisation.
He will also seek to use the negotiations to expose the benefits of retaining full membership at every turn. The contradictions of Brexit will be mercilessly exposed for the world to see, so that nobody can be in any doubt that the UK is engaged in a pointless act of insanity.
You do have to wonder how any country manages outside of the EU.
The UK isn't any country. The UK is a post-imperial European country ravaged by two world wars and haunted by its loss of status. To turn its back on the EU is even more of a denial of its interests as for Russia to cling to Putin in an attempt to regain lost influence.
If being ravaged entails standing up for freedom, helping set up dozens of democracies and liberating a continent from one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen, we could do with being ravaged a little more often. I think our victories against the Second and Third Reichs are very proud moments in our history, whether or not many on the left think badly of them.
I think you'll find it was the left that stood most vehemently against the 3rd Reich... The conservatives, Daily Mail etc. (with the notable worthy exception of Churchill) were all for appeasement until there was no option.
Some of the Left did. People like George Lansbury and the PPU were staunchly pro-appeasement.
Yes fair point - it's never black & white. I was just trying to point out to CornishJohn that the left weren't soft on the fight against fascism and thr 3rd Reich. Wikipedia sums it up well...
"As the threat from Nazi Germany increased, in the late 1930s the Labour Party gradually abandoned its pacifist stance and supported re-armament, largely due to the efforts of Ernest Bevin and Hugh Dalton who by 1937 had also persuaded the party to oppose Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement."
I think you'll find it was the left that stood most vehemently against the 3rd Reich... The conservatives, Daily Mail etc. (with the notable worthy exception of Churchill) were all for appeasement until there was no option.
Some of the Left did. People like George Lansbury and the PPU were staunchly pro-appeasement.
Not exactly, as I understand it. They were simply pacifists, coloured by WW1 - it wasn't that they favoured sucking up to Hitler as the Mail did.
I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
quite
I'd be quite happy with a soft brexit, but the more you see remainers deny there were any problems the more you realise they have understood nothing, so if it takes a hard bexit then so be it
O/T Barnier is clearly aiming for the EC President job after Juncker goes.
If he is, that's good news for Britain. He'll want a deal that he can sell as a success.
I would agree with that. More precisely I think he wants Britain to leave the EU with as little damage to the EU as possible. It's not quite the same, but a deal is part of that damage minimisation.
He will also seek to use the negotiations to expose the benefits of retaining full membership at every turn. The contradictions of Brexit will be mercilessly exposed for the world to see, so that nobody can be in any doubt that the UK is engaged in a pointless act of insanity.
You do have to wonder how any country manages outside of the EU.
The UK isn't any country. The UK is a post-imperial European country ravaged by two world wars and haunted by its loss of status. To turn its back on the EU is even more of a denial of its interests as for Russia to cling to Putin in an attempt to regain lost influence.
If being ravaged entails standing up for freedom, helping set up dozens of democracies and liberating a continent from one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen, we could do with being ravaged a little more often. I think our victories against the Second and Third Reichs are very proud moments in our history, whether or not many on the left think badly of them.
I think you'll find it was the left that stood most vehemently against the 3rd Reich... The conservatives, Daily Mail etc. (with the notable worthy exception of Churchill) were all for appeasement until there was no option.
Some of the Left did. People like George Lansbury and the PPU were staunchly pro-appeasement.
To be fair, the Conservatives had their fair share of appeasers too.
I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
What makes you feel you can ascribe any of that to the EU, rather than 7 years of austerity?
My impression is that most foreigners don't think much about Britain at all (the idea that everyone else is agonising over Brexit is solipsism). If they do, however, they feel a mixture of amusement, sympathy and bafflement, in varying proportions. A new referendum reversing the decision would be seen as a return to rationality, albeit a somewhat embarrassing one. I don't expect it to happen, though, unless - as Alastair says - the proportion against moves closer to 2-1.
Why is it "rational" to want to be be ruled by a foreign power?
The EU is a partnership we chose to join, not a foreign power.
If we'd vetoed Spain's accession in the 80s I imagine Geoff would see things differently.
I've not considered that scenario, to be fair. I don't see what difference it would have made - they were dirty lazy bastards beforehand and joining the EU didn't change that.
The last 32 years have been pretty good for Spain. They've gone from 55% of the GDP per head of Italy to 95%. They've seen the biggest percentage increase in employment anywhere in the developed world. They have produced the world's best mass market fashion retailer, and two top tier technology companies (admittedly they are two of the top three firms in the transport and travel vertical). Spaniards live longer, have more savings and are massively more prosperous than 32 years ago.
For a different take, this: . . . Yet it is not just Spain’s younger generation and fresh-faced politicians who are disgusted with corruption, or see a glaring mismatch between stellar GDP performance and a broken labour market. In April, several leading Spanish economists sent a vitriolic letter to Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the eurozone’s group of finance ministers, accusing the EU and Spanish politicians of ‘scandalous manipulation’ of GDP figures and blaming them for generating ‘a gigantic bubble of debt … that will ruin the next generations of Spaniards for not less than 50 years’.
I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
What makes you feel you can ascribe any of that to the EU, rather than 7 years of austerity?
There's an interesting story in the FT on Jen's Weidmann's ambitions to be ECB head. I'm not sure how it will play out, but - were it to happen - it would mark an abrupt change in direction at the ECB.
There's an interesting story in the FT on Jen's Weidmann's ambitions to be ECB head. I'm not sure how it will play out, but - were it to happen - it would mark an abrupt change in direction at the ECB.
Thank god for that, Tom Harrison needs to be forced out as head of the ECB with his franchise t20 tournament nonsense.
My impression is that most foreigners don't think much about Britain at all (the idea that everyone else is agonising over Brexit is solipsism). If they do, however, they feel a mixture of amusement, sympathy and bafflement, in varying proportions. A new referendum reversing the decision would be seen as a return to rationality, albeit a somewhat embarrassing one. I don't expect it to happen, though, unless - as Alastair says - the proportion against moves closer to 2-1.
Why is it "rational" to want to be be ruled by a foreign power?
The EU is a partnership we chose to join, not a foreign power.
If we'd vetoed Spain's accession in the 80s I imagine Geoff would see things differently.
I've not considered that scenario, to be fair. I don't see what difference it would have made - they were dirty lazy bastards beforehand and joining the EU didn't change that.
The last 32 years have been pretty good for Spain. They've gone from 55% of the GDP per head of Italy to 95%. They've seen the biggest percentage increase in employment anywhere in the developed world. They have produced the world's best mass market fashion retailer, and two top tier technology companies (admittedly they are two of the top three firms in the transport and travel vertical). Spaniards live longer, have more savings and are massively more prosperous than 32 years ago.
For a different take, this: . . . Yet it is not just Spain’s younger generation and fresh-faced politicians who are disgusted with corruption, or see a glaring mismatch between stellar GDP performance and a broken labour market. In April, several leading Spanish economists sent a vitriolic letter to Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the eurozone’s group of finance ministers, accusing the EU and Spanish politicians of ‘scandalous manipulation’ of GDP figures and blaming them for generating ‘a gigantic bubble of debt … that will ruin the next generations of Spaniards for not less than 50 years’.
They're blaming the hangover, rather than Spain's pre 2008 property driven bubble economy. There was never going to be an easy way to change an economy based on property price inflation, debt and consumption to an export led one. Austerity has been painful in Spain. But so were all the alternatives.
Is that investment in the car factories which we were told would shut down if there was a Leave vote or in the car factories we were told would shut down if Britain didn't join the Euro ?
There's an interesting story in the FT on Jen's Weidmann's ambitions to be ECB head. I'm not sure how it will play out, but - were it to happen - it would mark an abrupt change in direction at the ECB.
The contrast between football and rugby is stark. Yesterday in Wellington, the ref looked at the replay of Williams's shoulder charge and gave a red card without any fuss. Tonight an elbow is clearly swung by a player and the ref bottles it and shows a yellow card.
Is Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain any good?
Rumours abound he's turned down the new Arsenal deal and wants to play for Klopp.
Is that investment in the car factories which we were told would shut down if there was a Leave vote or in the car factories we were told would shut down if Britain didn't join the Euro ?
Well I reckon Nissan et al were all fed bullshit by Mrs May, and now her and Leave's chickens are coming home to roost.
The contrast between football and rugby is stark. Yesterday in Wellington, the ref looked at the replay of Williams's shoulder charge and gave a red card without any fuss. Tonight an elbow is clearly swung by a player and the ref bottles it and shows a yellow card.
Is Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain any good?
Rumours abound he's turned down the new Arsenal deal and wants to play for Klopp.
Been a promising youngster, who you don't miss when he doesn't play, for 6 years. Would be a wrench to see him fulfil potential at a rival.
I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
What makes you feel you can ascribe any of that to the EU, rather than 7 years of austerity?
Mass immigration of cheap labour from 2004
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
Is that investment in the car factories which we were told would shut down if there was a Leave vote or in the car factories we were told would shut down if Britain didn't join the Euro ?
Well I reckon Nissan et al were all fed bullshit by Mrs May, and now her and Leave's chickens are coming home to roost.
yes Im sure that's it I mean the negotiations have concluded and theyve shared the results with you no ?
Is that investment in the car factories which we were told would shut down if there was a Leave vote or in the car factories we were told would shut down if Britain didn't join the Euro ?
Well I reckon Nissan et al were all fed bullshit by Mrs May, and now her and Leave's chickens are coming home to roost.
If they did not think there was a promising market in the UK, why would they even invest £1.6bn? That's a lot of money to throw away on the supposed economic catastrophe that is coming.
Is that investment in the car factories which we were told would shut down if there was a Leave vote or in the car factories we were told would shut down if Britain didn't join the Euro ?
Well I reckon Nissan et al were all fed bullshit by Mrs May, and now her and Leave's chickens are coming home to roost.
yes Im sure that's it I mean the negotiations have concluded and theyve shared the results with you no ?
As one of the few PBers who has actually deals with DExEU and other government departments on a regular basis I'd like to share more info but I'm bound by various agreements I've signed.
On a totally unrelated note, Liam Fox is an idiot, he couldn't find a cup of water if you dropped him in a lake.
There's an interesting story in the FT on Jen's Weidmann's ambitions to be ECB head. I'm not sure how it will play out, but - were it to happen - it would mark an abrupt change in direction at the ECB.
O/T Barnier is clearly aiming for the EC President job after Juncker goes.
If he is, that's good news for Britain. He'll want a deal that he can sell as a success.
You do have to wonder how any country manages outside of the EU.
The UK isn't any country. The UK is a post-imperial European country ravaged by two world wars and haunted by its loss of status. To turn its back on the EU is even more of a denial of its interests as for Russia to cling to Putin in an attempt to regain lost influence.
If being ravaged entails standing up for freedom, helping set up dozens of democracies and liberating a continent from one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen, we could do with being ravaged a little more often. I think our victories against the Second and Third Reichs are very proud moments in our history, whether or not many on the left think badly of them.
I think you'll find it was the left that stood most vehemently against the 3rd Reich... The conservatives, Daily Mail etc. (with the notable worthy exception of Churchill) were all for appeasement until there was no option.
Some of the Left did. People like George Lansbury and the PPU were staunchly pro-appeasement.
Yes fair point - it's never black & white. I was just trying to point out to CornishJohn that the left weren't soft on the fight against fascism and thr 3rd Reich. Wikipedia sums it up well...
"As the threat from Nazi Germany increased, in the late 1930s the Labour Party gradually abandoned its pacifist stance and supported re-armament, largely due to the efforts of Ernest Bevin and Hugh Dalton who by 1937 had also persuaded the party to oppose Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement."
I did not denigrate the many decent left-wing people that stood up to fascism. I am simply criticising those of today who see the two world wars as a ravaging of Britain and a loss of status. It is very clear from the current leadership of the Labour Party, and the 40% of the public willing to vote for them, that the left is far more anti-British than it once was.
We can't stop freedom of movement abruptly. We need to allow *low* skilled immigration for a few years after we leave, at least until. Many businesses will grind to a halt without eastern european migration.
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
What makes you feel you can ascribe any of that to the EU, rather than 7 years of austerity?
Mass immigration of cheap labour from 2004
Real wages continued to grow until 2008 when the global finance crisis recession hit them. The real shocker is that after 7 masterful years of tory economic policy real average earinings have still not recovered to 2008 levels.
Is that investment in the car factories which we were told would shut down if there was a Leave vote or in the car factories we were told would shut down if Britain didn't join the Euro ?
Well I reckon Nissan et al were all fed bullshit by Mrs May, and now her and Leave's chickens are coming home to roost.
Maybe and maybe not and things can change one way or another.
But there's two things we do know for sure - firstly a year after the Leave vote the car factories haven't shut down and secondly they will be looking for government handouts (as they always are).
And as GFCF was higher in 2017q1 than in either 2016q4 or 2016q1 there will be other parts of the economy where capital investment has increased.
I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
What makes you feel you can ascribe any of that to the EU, rather than 7 years of austerity?
Mass immigration of cheap labour from 2004
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
Re house prices the other invariably overlooked factor is that housing benefit subsidises landlords and places a floor underneath rents. If rent had to fall so unsubsidised tenants could afford it, that rental income would be less attractive to BTL landlords so house prices would fall. How we get from here to there without mass homelessness is left as an exercise for the reader.
Is that investment in the car factories which we were told would shut down if there was a Leave vote or in the car factories we were told would shut down if Britain didn't join the Euro ?
Well I reckon Nissan et al were all fed bullshit by Mrs May, and now her and Leave's chickens are coming home to roost.
If they did not think there was a promising market in the UK, why would they even invest £1.6bn? That's a lot of money to throw away on the supposed economic catastrophe that is coming.
Because investment decisions have long lead times, and you wouldn't walk away from a half (or even 25%) finished project?
More seriously: the big problem with investment that the UK has is that Dr Fox's department is totally failing to even replicate the existing trade arrangements the EU has, and has failed to publish a tariff schedule. If you were making a decision on where to build a factory, and you had no idea with whom a country would have tariff free agreements in 20 months time, and no idea what its tariff schedules would look like, would it be top of your list of investment destinations?
I think, by and large, David Davis is doing a good job at DfxEU. I think that, at the end of the day, a sensible agreement with the EU will be reached, and while people will bitch that there's a price tag attached, it will all work out OK. I'm much less sanguine about Dr Fox. We are woefully unprepared in our relations with the rest of the world.
O/T Barnier is clearly aiming for the EC President job after Juncker goes.
If he is, that's good news for Britain. He'll want a deal that he can sell as a success.
You do have to wonder how any country manages outside of the EU.
The UK isn't any country. The UK is a post-imperial European country ravaged by two world wars and haunted by its loss of status. To turn its back on the EU is even more of a denial of its interests as for Russia to cling to Putin in an attempt to regain lost influence.
If being ravaged entails standing up for freedom, helping set up dozens of democracies and liberating a continent from one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen, we could do with being ravaged a little more often. I think our victories against the Second and Third Reichs are very proud moments in our history, whether or not many on the left think badly of them.
I think you'll find it was the left that stood most vehemently against the 3rd Reich... The conservatives, Daily Mail etc. (with the notable worthy exception of Churchill) were all for appeasement until there was no option.
Some of the Left did. People like George Lansbury and the PPU were staunchly pro-appeasement.
Yes fair point - it's never black & white. I was just trying to point out to CornishJohn that the left weren't soft on the fight against fascism and thr 3rd Reich. Wikipedia sums it up well...
"As the threat from Nazi Germany increased, in the late 1930s the Labour Party gradually abandoned its pacifist stance and supported re-armament, largely due to the efforts of Ernest Bevin and Hugh Dalton who by 1937 had also persuaded the party to oppose Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement."
I did not denigrate the many decent left-wing people that stood up to fascism. I am simply criticising those of today who see the two world wars as a ravaging of Britain and a loss of status. It is very clear from the current leadership of the Labour Party, and the 40% of the public willing to vote for them, that the left is far more anti-British than it once was.
Are you saying the 40% who voted Labour are anti-British?? Seems a bit tenuous.
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
Its interesting though that London is the only region in Britain which has negative net internal migration.
So without immigration from outside the UK London house prices would have far more downward pressure.
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
Its interesting though that London is the only region in Britain which has negative net internal migration.
So without immigration from outside the UK London house prices would have far more downward pressure.
Yes; although if house prices had been lower in London, maybe fewer Brits would have left.
Apropos of nothing: you are correct that I made a mistake on the earlier thread. I was completely confused re 2007/2008. I blame the birth of my daughter (in late 2007) which has left my memories of the period somewhat confused.
There's an interesting story in the FT on Jen's Weidmann's ambitions to be ECB head. I'm not sure how it will play out, but - were it to happen - it would mark an abrupt change in direction at the ECB.
What makes you feel you can ascribe any of that to the EU, rather than 7 years of austerity?
Mass immigration of cheap labour from 2004
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
Re house prices the other invariably overlooked factor is that housing benefit subsidises landlords and places a floor underneath rents. If rent had to fall so unsubsidised tenants could afford it, that rental income would be less attractive to BTL landlords so house prices would fall. How we get from here to there without mass homelessness is left as an exercise for the reader.
My conclusion was actually that most factors have stayed constant over the last 20 years apart from house prices which are much higher, and job security which is much lower, leading to objectively lower standards of living.
Immigration is one of many factors which has led to house price inflation, the biggest issue is credit availability and lack of control on borrowing. Low interest BTL mortgages inflate asset prices. Constraints on supply exacerbate these issues, but what people overlook is that in many parts of the south east there simply isn't any option to increase supply without other consequences
My impression is that most foreigners don't think much about Britain at all (the idea that everyone else is agonising over Brexit is solipsism). If they do, however, they feel a mixture of amusement, sympathy and bafflement, in varying proportions. A new referendum reversing the decision would be seen as a return to rationality, albeit a somewhat embarrassing one. I don't expect it to happen, though, unless - as Alastair says - the proportion against moves closer to 2-1.
Why is it "rational" to want to be be ruled by a foreign power?
The EU is a partnership we chose to join, not a foreign power.
If we'd vetoed Spain's accession in the 80s I imagine Geoff would see things differently.
I've not considered that scenario, to be fair. I don't see what difference it would have made - they were dirty lazy bastards beforehand and joining the EU didn't change that.
Brexit is very unlikely to happen, because once the likely economic consequences are known to MP's and the public, there will be an inevitable demand for a second referendum. This will be granted by whoever is in Government and i think a majority will favour remaining in the EU. Many who originally voted leave did so for reasons of controlling immigration and independence, but there is a limit to what they are willing to accept in terms of financial consequences.
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
Its interesting though that London is the only region in Britain which has negative net internal migration.
So without immigration from outside the UK London house prices would have far more downward pressure.
Yes; although if house prices had been lower in London, maybe fewer Brits would have left.
There's certainly a regular stream Londoners selling up their 3 bed semi and buying a country pile down here in Dorset, god luv'em!
The only way I see the decision being reversed is through a new government being elected on a pledge to hold a second referendum on staying in the EU.
The current state of parliament - hung parliament, very weak government divided on Brexit , makes another election quite likely. But what is less clear is which party or movement is going to offer a new referendum, and how they themselves have a route to a majority.
Nothing is impossible, particularly not now, but I would say it looks less than likely.
There's an interesting story in the FT on Jen's Weidmann's ambitions to be ECB head. I'm not sure how it will play out, but - were it to happen - it would mark an abrupt change in direction at the ECB.
If it is paywalled, just google 'Prospect of Weidmann in top job raises hackles at ECB'
Thanks.
Does that get around the paywall every time ?
And does it work with for example Times articles ?
I believe it works with every FT article.
As for The Times, no it doesn't work for them, they have a different paywall model.
(I believe if you register with The Times, you can get two free articles a week, as an aside, what I do with my Times subscription is sign up for their £3 for 3 months trial*, cancel after 2 months, and they'll give you a decent retention deal when you try and cancel, I should be paying £13 a month, but I'm paying £6 a month)
My impression is that most foreigners don't think much about Britain at all (the idea that everyone else is agonising over Brexit is solipsism). If they do, however, they feel a mixture of amusement, sympathy and bafflement, in varying proportions. A new referendum reversing the decision would be seen as a return to rationality, albeit a somewhat embarrassing one. I don't expect it to happen, though, unless - as Alastair says - the proportion against moves closer to 2-1.
Why is it "rational" to want to be be ruled by a foreign power?
The EU is a partnership we chose to join, not a foreign power.
If we'd vetoed Spain's accession in the 80s I imagine Geoff would see things differently.
I've not considered that scenario, to be fair. I don't see what difference it would have made - they were dirty lazy bastards beforehand and joining the EU didn't change that.
Pretty odious comment even by your standards
+1
Displaying such ignorance isn't going to convince anyone.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
Its interesting though that London is the only region in Britain which has negative net internal migration.
So without immigration from outside the UK London house prices would have far more downward pressure.
Yes; although if house prices had been lower in London, maybe fewer Brits would have left.
Apropos of nothing: you are correct that I made a mistake on the earlier thread. I was completely confused re 2007/2008. I blame the birth of my daughter (in late 2007) which has left my memories of the period somewhat confused.
No need to mention it - of course back in 2008 the BBC did everything they could to avoid saying the word recession. I think it was only in February 2009 that they accepted Britain was in one.
As to London, less immigration leading to lower housing costs would have made London a more attractive place to live and so encouraged people to live there. A natural feedback and stabilizing system. It would be interesting though to know which people are moving out of London.
Brexit is very unlikely to happen, because once the likely economic consequences are known to MP's and the public, there will be an inevitable demand for a second referendum. This will be granted by whoever is in Government and i think a majority will favour remaining in the EU. Many who originally voted leave did so for reasons of controlling immigration and independence, but there is a limit to what they are willing to accept in terms of financial consequences.
People tend not to row back on big breaks with the status quo.
There's an interesting story in the FT on Jen's Weidmann's ambitions to be ECB head. I'm not sure how it will play out, but - were it to happen - it would mark an abrupt change in direction at the ECB.
If it is paywalled, just google 'Prospect of Weidmann in top job raises hackles at ECB'
Thanks.
Does that get around the paywall every time ?
And does it work with for example Times articles ?
I believe it works with every FT article.
As for The Times, no it doesn't work for them, they have a different paywall model.
(I believe if you register with The Times, you can get two free articles a week, as an aside, what I do with my Times subscription is sign up for their £3 for 3 months trial*, cancel after 2 months, and they'll give you a decent retention deal when you try and cancel, I should be paying £13 a month, but I'm paying £6 a month)
*I think that offer expires today
The problem I have with a Times or Telegraph subscription is that I do most of my online newspaper reading at work.
And actually logging in might be a step too far for the IT manager.
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
The situation is at least as much financial as it is to do with housing supply and demand. We have rock bottom interest rates, QE, government schemes to support house buying and so prop up prices; we are extraordinarily open to foreign buyers, property taxes are very low by international standards, rising prices creates momentum and attracts more investors (until the bubble bursts), and we offer landlords an attractive financial and regulatory environment. Hopefully some of these factors are now slowly changing and we can see, in London at least, that the market appears to be topping out.
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
Its interesting though that London is the only region in Britain which has negative net internal migration.
So without immigration from outside the UK London house prices would have far more downward pressure.
Yes; although if house prices had been lower in London, maybe fewer Brits would have left.
There's certainly a regular stream Londoners selling up their 3 bed semi and buying a country pile down here in Dorset, god luv'em!
I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
What makes you feel you can ascribe any of that to the EU, rather than 7 years of austerity?
Mass immigration of cheap labour from 2004
Real wages continued to grow until 2008 when the global finance crisis recession hit them. The real shocker is that after 7 masterful years of tory economic policy real average earinings have still not recovered to 2008 levels.
the economy did take a beating in 2008/09. That can't be blamed on the current government, GDP per head is up about 10% on the low point of that recession.
Precisely correct. Someone on here the other day was comparing the circumstances of a typical worker from today with one from about 20 years ago. They found that their salary had gone up much higher than inflation, except for house prices, which have rocketed. Why do people think house prices have gone up so much, other than the population booming far faster than we can build houses for them?
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
Its interesting though that London is the only region in Britain which has negative net internal migration.
So without immigration from outside the UK London house prices would have far more downward pressure.
Yes; although if house prices had been lower in London, maybe fewer Brits would have left.
There's certainly a regular stream Londoners selling up their 3 bed semi and buying a country pile down here in Dorset, god luv'em!
Ditto in Yorkshire as well.
Well as I was looking, you can get a pile with it's own blimmin 4 hole pitch and putt golf course for the same price as a pokey flat in London !
My impression is that most foreigners don't think much about Britain at all (the idea that everyone else is agonising over Brexit is solipsism). If they do, however, they feel a mixture of amusement, sympathy and bafflement, in varying proportions. A new referendum reversing the decision would be seen as a return to rationality, albeit a somewhat embarrassing one. I don't expect it to happen, though, unless - as Alastair says - the proportion against moves closer to 2-1.
Why is it "rational" to want to be be ruled by a foreign power?
The EU is a partnership we chose to join, not a foreign power.
If we'd vetoed Spain's accession in the 80s I imagine Geoff would see things differently.
I've not considered that scenario, to be fair. I don't see what difference it would have made - they were dirty lazy bastards beforehand and joining the EU didn't change that.
Pretty odious comment even by your standards
+1
Displaying such ignorance isn't going to convince anyone.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
Its interesting though that London is the only region in Britain which has negative net internal migration.
So without immigration from outside the UK London house prices would have far more downward pressure.
Yes; although if house prices had been lower in London, maybe fewer Brits would have left.
Apropos of nothing: you are correct that I made a mistake on the earlier thread. I was completely confused re 2007/2008. I blame the birth of my daughter (in late 2007) which has left my memories of the period somewhat confused.
No need to mention it - of course back in 2008 the BBC did everything they could to avoid saying the word recession. I think it was only in February 2009 that they accepted Britain was in one.
As to London, less immigration leading to lower housing costs would have made London a more attractive place to live and so encouraged people to live there. A natural feedback and stabilizing system. It would be interesting though to know which people are moving out of London.
There's also a natural cycle of where people want to live through their lives. When I was 24, my prime concern was being close to work. (When you're working from 7am to 10pm weekdays, and a fair amount at weekends too, minimising commute time becomes a priority over space you'll never use. I lived with four other guys and one girl in a place two minutes walk from Aldgate East tube. isam would have considered the conditions inhumane.)
Then I got a bit older, and my hours reduced, and I worked only occasional weekends, and I chose more space and a bit of a commute became acceptable.
Older still and with kids, and then you care about having a garden, and your local school. And maybe then spending 45 on the train from somewhere outside London seems like a good trade.
My impression is that most foreigners don't think much about Britain at all (the idea that everyone else is agonising over Brexit is solipsism). If they do, however, they feel a mixture of amusement, sympathy and bafflement, in varying proportions. A new referendum reversing the decision would be seen as a return to rationality, albeit a somewhat embarrassing one. I don't expect it to happen, though, unless - as Alastair says - the proportion against moves closer to 2-1.
Why is it "rational" to want to be be ruled by a foreign power?
The EU is a partnership we chose to join, not a foreign power.
If we'd vetoed Spain's accession in the 80s I imagine Geoff would see things differently.
I've not considered that scenario, to be fair. I don't see what difference it would have made - they were dirty lazy bastards beforehand and joining the EU didn't change that.
Pretty odious comment even by your standards
He's an alt-righter so I'm not too surprised by his commentary.
Remainers have been looking for a opinion poll to hook a reversal of Brexit upon for over a year now, so they must be pleased with this one.
I don't know what will happen in the medium-term: I could see anything from a sensible Brexit that leads us to a new stable settlement outside the EU, that is politically accepted within the UK and proves to be economically neutral, to political support for Brexit collapsing, a coincident recession at the same time, and then the UK re-signing up to full EU membership in another 5 years, but this time with all the bells and whistles.
After the last few weeks, I'm not making any predictions. But, if that did happen, I would give up on politics for good.
I couldn't take my life-long dream dissolving in my face, and then backfiring, the gloating that would ensue, or another generation of feverish ruptures in the Conservative Party, and life's far too short for me to spend the rest of my life being disappointed and miserable.
I'd turn my attention to spending more time with my family and dogs, and staying out of history's way.
Come on. Enoch Powell wandered the streets of London in despair on Indian independence. If he got over that, you can get over staying in Europe. It will only happen if the people make an explicit choice to do so.
Well as I was looking, you can get a pile with it's own blimmin 4 hole pitch and putt golf course for the same price as a pokey flat in London !
I was offered a job in London a few days ago, I wasn't going to take it, but I had a look at the property market, so much has changed since I bought my first house in London in 2000.
Yes; although if house prices had been lower in London, maybe fewer Brits would have left.
There's certainly a regular stream Londoners selling up their 3 bed semi and buying a country pile down here in Dorset, god luv'em!
Ditto in Yorkshire as well.
Well as I was looking, you can get a pile with it's own blimmin 4 hole pitch and putt golf course for the same price as a pokey flat in London !
I'm actually surprised more Londoners don't move elsewhere.
Not just for property price reasons but also for employment purposes.
London might have lots of jobs at the top and bottom of the scale but I would think there are proportionally fewer good jobs for C1C2 types than elsewhere in Britain.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
Its interesting though that London is the only region in Britain which has negative net internal migration.
So without immigration from outside the UK London house prices would have far more downward pressure.
Yes; although if house prices had been lower in London, maybe fewer Brits would have left.
There's certainly a regular stream Londoners selling up their 3 bed semi and buying a country pile down here in Dorset, god luv'em!
Ditto in Yorkshire as well.
Well as I was looking, you can get a pile with it's own blimmin 4 hole pitch and putt golf course for the same price as a pokey flat in London !
Still, once the City gets scuppered by Brexit the taps will be turned off, London house prices will no doubt crash, and no more incomers to the sticks, which will seriously undermine the economies of Dorset, Yorkshire and other desirable London exodus targets.
Still, once the City gets scuppered by Brexit the taps will be turned off, London house prices will no doubt crash, and no more incomers to the sticks, which will seriously undermine the economies of Dorset, Yorkshire and other desirable London exodus targets.
Still, at least we'll be taking back control eh?
I reckon London house prices will remain stable/go up.
There's enough Russian and Middle East money still wanting to come to London.
One of the things we take for granted is that we have a strong and independent legal judiciary and a lack of government retribution/seizing of assets.
The EU want our to be £20bn a year net contribution. They never allow anyone to leave. How much are they spending behind the scenes to influence opinion?
Still, once the City gets scuppered by Brexit the taps will be turned off, London house prices will no doubt crash, and no more incomers to the sticks, which will seriously undermine the economies of Dorset, Yorkshire and other desirable London exodus targets.
Still, at least we'll be taking back control eh?
I reckon London house prices will remain stable/go up.
There's enough Russian and Middle East money still wanting to come to London.
One of the things we take for granted is that we have a strong and independent legal judiciary and a lack of government retribution/seizing of assets.
The EU want our to be £20bn a year net contribution. They never allow anyone to leave. How much are they spending behind the scenes to influence opinion?
We don't have a £20bn net contribution; that's gross, pre-rebate.
The EU want our to be £20bn a year net contribution. They never allow anyone to leave. How much are they spending behind the scenes to influence opinion?
We don't have a £20bn net contribution; that's gross, pre-rebate.
And in any event the EU GDP is what? circa £13,000bn. I am sure they will manage to find £20bn somehow. We will be the only losers in this game.
"Nearly 60% of Leave voters would now pay to retain EU citizenship
Exclusive: Findings shown to The Independent suggest many who opted for Brexit at last year’s referendum would pay more than £1,000 to keep benefits of EU rights"
I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
What makes you feel you can ascribe any of that to the EU, rather than 7 years of austerity?
Mass immigration of cheap labour from 2004
Real wages continued to grow until 2008 when the global finance crisis recession hit them. The real shocker is that after 7 masterful years of tory economic policy real average earinings have still not recovered to 2008 levels.
Maybe wages overall, but probably not the for lowest paid
If the mass importation of cheap labour doesn't result in cheaper labour, why do it?
The problem is that it has made the rich richer and the poor poorer, in every sense. Lets agree that cheap EU labour has fuelled the economy. The problem is that the economic benefit has not been passed down to the people who were negatively affected. The money that using cheap foreign labour saved should somehow have resulted in better public services, more housing etc, but it hasn't. House prices are up, new builds are shit, reliable full time work is rarer, zero hours part time work is thriving. The British poor have been fucked in every hole, that's why they voted to Leave. But the people who "Common People" was written about think they just don't like dem furriners
"Nearly 60% of Leave voters would now pay to retain EU citizenship
Exclusive: Findings shown to The Independent suggest many who opted for Brexit at last year’s referendum would pay more than £1,000 to keep benefits of EU rights"
"Nearly 60% of Leave voters would now pay to retain EU citizenship
Exclusive: Findings shown to The Independent suggest many who opted for Brexit at last year’s referendum would pay more than £1,000 to keep benefits of EU rights"
I can't see how brexit is supposed to work without the vast majority of Brits getting substantially poorer.
We can't eat sovereignty.
Let's have another referndum now we have some idea what brexit means.
Remain vs. Hard Brexit
Bring it on.
What seems to me to be ignored by people making the economic argument, is that the lowest paid Brits have already been made substantially poorer by our EU membership, in terms of wages, job security, access to state resources, ability to buy a home etc. That's why they voted to leave it
What makes you feel you can ascribe any of that to the EU, rather than 7 years of austerity?
Mass immigration of cheap labour from 2004
Real wages continued to grow until 2008 when the global finance crisis recession hit them. The real shocker is that after 7 masterful years of tory economic policy real average earinings have still not recovered to 2008 levels.
Maybe wages overall, but probably not the for lowest paid
If the mass importation of cheap labour doesn't result in cheaper labour, why do it?
To fill jobs for which we don't have enough people.
"UK unemployment rate held at a 42-year low of 4.6 percent in the three months to April 2017" (tradingeconomics.com based on ONS figures)
"Farmers deliver stark warning over access to EU seasonal workers. Meurig Raymond, president of the National Farmers’ Union, told the body’s annual conference in Birmingham that farmers and food processors, particularly in horticulture and poultry, were already having difficulty recruiting." (theguardian.com)
"Nearly 60% of Leave voters would now pay to retain EU citizenship
Exclusive: Findings shown to The Independent suggest many who opted for Brexit at last year’s referendum would pay more than £1,000 to keep benefits of EU rights"
Anyone live in the Shrewsbury area? Large numbers of emergency vehicles speeding along the M54 in that direction. Police, ambulances, fire engines. Lots of them. Could be some sort of exercise I suppose. Can't find any information on Twitter or local newspaper sites.
"Nearly 60% of Leave voters would now pay to retain EU citizenship
Exclusive: Findings shown to The Independent suggest many who opted for Brexit at last year’s referendum would pay more than £1,000 to keep benefits of EU rights"
90% of people responding to these polls haven't got much idea of what they're being asked.
For example what does 'freedom of movement' mean to the average person ? Probably being able to go on holiday to Spain without applying for a visa six months in advance.
Though to be fair even people who are well informed don't know yet how things are going to finalise.
"Nearly 60% of Leave voters would now pay to retain EU citizenship
Exclusive: Findings shown to The Independent suggest many who opted for Brexit at last year’s referendum would pay more than £1,000 to keep benefits of EU rights"
There's an interesting story in the FT on Jen's Weidmann's ambitions to be ECB head. I'm not sure how it will play out, but - were it to happen - it would mark an abrupt change in direction at the ECB.
If it is paywalled, just google 'Prospect of Weidmann in top job raises hackles at ECB'
Thanks.
Does that get around the paywall every time ?
And does it work with for example Times articles ?
I believe it works with every FT article.
As for The Times, no it doesn't work for them, they have a different paywall model.
(I believe if you register with The Times, you can get two free articles a week, as an aside, what I do with my Times subscription is sign up for their £3 for 3 months trial*, cancel after 2 months, and they'll give you a decent retention deal when you try and cancel, I should be paying £13 a month, but I'm paying £6 a month)
*I think that offer expires today
Good tip that - I thought £13 a month was extortionate, but might take £6.
Comments
but good to see youve moved on to bargaining, only depression and acceptance to go
"As the threat from Nazi Germany increased, in the late 1930s the Labour Party gradually abandoned its pacifist stance and supported re-armament, largely due to the efforts of Ernest Bevin and Hugh Dalton who by 1937 had also persuaded the party to oppose Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement."
I'd be quite happy with a soft brexit, but the more you see remainers deny there were any problems the more you realise they have understood nothing, so if it takes a hard bexit then so be it
Support for the cold hard reality brexit is falling off a cliff.
. . .
Yet it is not just Spain’s younger generation and fresh-faced politicians who are disgusted with corruption, or see a glaring mismatch between stellar GDP performance and a broken labour market. In April, several leading Spanish economists sent a vitriolic letter to Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the eurozone’s group of finance ministers, accusing the EU and Spanish politicians of ‘scandalous manipulation’ of GDP figures and blaming them for generating ‘a gigantic bubble of debt … that will ruin the next generations of Spaniards for not less than 50 years’.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/spains-lost-generation/
people voted leave for a whole variety of reasons
as for falling off a cliff well as I said downthread if youve now resorted to believing polls it smacks of desperation
http://punch.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Ireland-Cartoons/G0000tcWkXyP4OHo/I0000QmDz5HPdN.I
Rumours abound he's turned down the new Arsenal deal and wants to play for Klopp.
People try to deny the impact migration, especially low income migration, has on the housing stock. But you only need to witness the footage of people being evacuated from tower blocks in London to see it is overwhelmingly migrants taking up the spaces. I don't blame the migrants, as they are just taking what is offered. But it seems crazy as implicit national policy to allow so many needy people in, undermining the standard of living for our own citizens, when it would be so much cheaper to help the world's poor in their regions of origin.
On a totally unrelated note, Liam Fox is an idiot, he couldn't find a cup of water if you dropped him in a lake.
https://www.ft.com/content/e7505948-5dad-11e7-9bc8-8055f264aa8b
If it is paywalled, just google 'Prospect of Weidmann in top job raises hackles at ECB'
Just started a new job which has changed my mind.
In the first half of that period, from 1992 to 2005, London house prices went up a little more than 4x (13% per year). During the second half of the period they went up less than 50% (less than 3% per year). Now, during the former period there was pretty limited immigration from the EU. And during the latter there was (frankly) massive amounts of immigration.
London became unaffordable for almost all people in the period before mass Eastern European immigration. So, while I'm sure immigration (and in particular Eastern European unskilled immigration) played a role, it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely (or even largely) on it given when the house price moves happened.
But there's two things we do know for sure - firstly a year after the Leave vote the car factories haven't shut down and secondly they will be looking for government handouts (as they always are).
And as GFCF was higher in 2017q1 than in either 2016q4 or 2016q1 there will be other parts of the economy where capital investment has increased.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/businessinvestment/jantomar2017revisedresults
I wonder if Jo Maugham will be tweeting about those.
More seriously: the big problem with investment that the UK has is that Dr Fox's department is totally failing to even replicate the existing trade arrangements the EU has, and has failed to publish a tariff schedule. If you were making a decision on where to build a factory, and you had no idea with whom a country would have tariff free agreements in 20 months time, and no idea what its tariff schedules would look like, would it be top of your list of investment destinations?
I think, by and large, David Davis is doing a good job at DfxEU. I think that, at the end of the day, a sensible agreement with the EU will be reached, and while people will bitch that there's a price tag attached, it will all work out OK. I'm much less sanguine about Dr Fox. We are woefully unprepared in our relations with the rest of the world.
So without immigration from outside the UK London house prices would have far more downward pressure.
Apropos of nothing: you are correct that I made a mistake on the earlier thread. I was completely confused re 2007/2008. I blame the birth of my daughter (in late 2007) which has left my memories of the period somewhat confused.
Does that get around the paywall every time ?
And does it work with for example Times articles ?
Immigration is one of many factors which has led to house price inflation, the biggest issue is credit availability and lack of control on borrowing. Low interest BTL mortgages inflate asset prices. Constraints on supply exacerbate these issues, but what people overlook is that in many parts of the south east there simply isn't any option to increase supply without other consequences
The current state of parliament - hung parliament, very weak government divided on Brexit , makes another election quite likely. But what is less clear is which party or movement is going to offer a new referendum, and how they themselves have a route to a majority.
Nothing is impossible, particularly not now, but I would say it looks less than likely.
As for The Times, no it doesn't work for them, they have a different paywall model.
(I believe if you register with The Times, you can get two free articles a week, as an aside, what I do with my Times subscription is sign up for their £3 for 3 months trial*, cancel after 2 months, and they'll give you a decent retention deal when you try and cancel, I should be paying £13 a month, but I'm paying £6 a month)
*I think that offer expires today
Displaying such ignorance isn't going to convince anyone.
As to London, less immigration leading to lower housing costs would have made London a more attractive place to live and so encouraged people to live there. A natural feedback and stabilizing system. It would be interesting though to know which people are moving out of London.
And actually logging in might be a step too far for the IT manager.
The Spanish have the cheap stuff.
Still, the cod wars weren't about our inshore waters.
Then I got a bit older, and my hours reduced, and I worked only occasional weekends, and I chose more space and a bit of a commute became acceptable.
Older still and with kids, and then you care about having a garden, and your local school. And maybe then spending 45 on the train from somewhere outside London seems like a good trade.
Here is the always interesting Wendover Productions on maritime law...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7CvEt51fz4
Not just for property price reasons but also for employment purposes.
London might have lots of jobs at the top and bottom of the scale but I would think there are proportionally fewer good jobs for C1C2 types than elsewhere in Britain.
Still, at least we'll be taking back control eh?
There's enough Russian and Middle East money still wanting to come to London.
One of the things we take for granted is that we have a strong and independent legal judiciary and a lack of government retribution/seizing of assets.
Exclusive: Findings shown to The Independent suggest many who opted for Brexit at last year’s referendum would pay more than £1,000 to keep benefits of EU rights"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/leave-voters-ready-pay-to-keep-eu-citizenship-brexit-poll-lse-opinium-a7819001.html
LVT in the autumn budget anyone?
If the mass importation of cheap labour doesn't result in cheaper labour, why do it?
The problem is that it has made the rich richer and the poor poorer, in every sense. Lets agree that cheap EU labour has fuelled the economy. The problem is that the economic benefit has not been passed down to the people who were negatively affected. The money that using cheap foreign labour saved should somehow have resulted in better public services, more housing etc, but it hasn't. House prices are up, new builds are shit, reliable full time work is rarer, zero hours part time work is thriving. The British poor have been fucked in every hole, that's why they voted to Leave. But the people who "Common People" was written about think they just don't like dem furriners
"UK unemployment rate held at a 42-year low of 4.6 percent in the three months to April 2017" (tradingeconomics.com based on ONS figures)
"Farmers deliver stark warning over access to EU seasonal workers. Meurig Raymond, president of the National Farmers’ Union, told the body’s annual conference in Birmingham that farmers and food processors, particularly in horticulture and poultry, were already having difficulty recruiting." (theguardian.com)
Anyone live in the Shrewsbury area? Large numbers of emergency vehicles speeding along the M54 in that direction. Police, ambulances, fire engines. Lots of them. Could be some sort of exercise I suppose. Can't find any information on Twitter or local newspaper sites.
Didn't BoJo vote AGAINSTremoving the 1% cap just 3 days ago?
For example what does 'freedom of movement' mean to the average person ? Probably being able to go on holiday to Spain without applying for a visa six months in advance.
Though to be fair even people who are well informed don't know yet how things are going to finalise.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/uk/uk-politics/theresa-may-specials/224911185/