That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.
If none of that happens, will you be disappointed?
Mr. Royale, whilst I don't disagree, it is natural for those with current advantages (or preferences) to lament their loss by way of change and for potential gains to be seen as either illusory or outright mirages. Quite reminiscent of why Machiavelli said revolutions and regicide often fail, because those who do well out of the incumbent regime are staunch opponents, and supporters of change (for whom advantages are potential and may prove false) are lukewarm allies.
That's one of the reasons I thought, for a long time, Remain would win easily.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
And one more:
When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006
Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
And do you think Leaving will halt it?
It gives us opportunities to address it. Whether we seize those opportunities or let them slide through our fingers is very much up to us and those we elect. The last point may be a problem of course. Are there any adults in the room?
As mentioned yesterday in an exchange with Charles, few people don't think our economy needs adjustment - productivity, skills, housing, you name it. What we have done, however, is a Conor McGregor, if I may employ an analogy in this instance. We are good at what we do, very good in fact, but not ready yet for the challenge we have set ourselves in the time available.
We have decided that not only will we make those adjustments, but we will do so, in a politically equivalent timeframe, by a week next Thursday. And this is to assume that anyone, not Lab, not Cons actually has the cojones to make them in the first place. This is not to say we can't make them, just that the preparation and groundwork required to give them any chance of success will take more than the time available.
Voting to Leave the EU if or because we want to upskill and increase our productivity is, if I may say, a perverse way of going about it.
The Lord's powers of delay have been increased by the government opting for a two year session to consider Brexit Bills. The Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule a Lords veto in the next session. Sally a year away at most but now after Brexit. The government could of course change it's mind and prorogue early to start a new session. But that might cost a Billion or two for Northern Ireland with another Queen's Speech.
I think David Herdson is right. An unelected house with an appetite for self preservation won't block Brexit legislation. But if it did the two year session actually extends the Lord's delaying powers. The handsome and erudite Mr Meeks is also correct. There are a 101 ways the Lord's can slow things down without rejecting a Bill.
But all roads lead to Rome. Brexit is very easily reversed if voters change their minds. But the Buggers haven't. If they did all the technical problems about staying would vanish. It's a legal problem that would be quickly sorted. But there is no sign for a shift in public opinion. If Brexit becomes unpopular it will be stopped. So far it hasn't.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.
It would be nigh on a disaster for humanity if there were not considerably increased riches for Poland, but to mention Indonesia, India, Russia Bolivia and hopefully Venezuela to name a few random nations.
There will be a closing of the gap began richer and poorer populations. That is a good thing, not bad.
Getting richer at a slightly slower rate than others is not the worst of fates.
I agree if we could accept that reality as a middle ranking nation with no real power to influence.Could have some real benefits .
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
It's becoming clearer by the day that staying out of the Euro was a terrible mistake.
When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006
Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
And do you think Leaving will halt it?
It gives us opportunities to address it. Whether we seize those opportunities or let them slide through our fingers is very much up to us and those we elect. The last point may be a problem of course. Are there any adults in the room?
As mentioned yesterday in an exchange with Charles, few people don't think our economy needs adjustment - productivity, skills, housing, you name it. What we have done, however, is a Conor McGregor, if I may employ an analogy in this instance. We are good at what we do, very good in fact, but not ready yet for the challenge we have set ourselves in the time available.
We have decided that not only will we make those adjustments, but we will do so, in a politically equivalent timeframe, by a week next Thursday. And this is to assume that anyone, not Lab, not Cons actually has the cojones to make them in the first place. This is not to say we can't make them, just that the preparation and groundwork required to give them any chance of success will take more than the time available.
Voting to Leave the EU if or because we want to upskill and increase our productivity is, if I may say, a perverse way of going about it.
It is certainly not the solution on its own or any kind of magic panacea but I don't see anything perverse about it.
We have very low productivity. That is partly because the supply of labour is almost infinitely elastic. The whole EU world speaks English and wants to work here. There is no incentive to invest in training or technology because there is no risk that labour is going to become materially more expensive, even as we approach something like full employment.
Compressing the supply of labour may have short term adverse effects on the rate of growth but long term benefits provided we address the challenge. Having an economy that is dependent on 300K immigrants a year to make it grow is not a long term viable solution.
We have a very serious trade deficit. It is entirely with the EU, we have a surplus with the rest of the world. And we are supposed to be concerned that trade with the EU might become less frictionless? There will be opportunities for import substitution and greater integration of the supply base in the UK. Will we take those opportunities? Who knows, but the current EU situation does not work to our advantage (unlike, say, Germany).
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.
SNIP
In 20 years I expect no difference in our overall relative level of wealth compared to other large EU countries, and, in fact, I think it may even be better.
That is because it seems that you are economically illiterate.
Why not go the whole hog and say I'm stupid because I disagree with you?
I've decided I won't be discussing Brexit anymore with you, unless I perceive some new development or angle that is of interest to me.
Quite apart from your rudeness (which you consistently excuse on the basis that it's the internet and it's "anonymous") it's just become extremely boring and is a total waste of my time.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
It's becoming clearer by the day that staying out of the Euro was a terrible mistake.
I blame the RAF for winning the Battle of Britain.
Mr. Royale, whilst I don't disagree, it is natural for those with current advantages (or preferences) to lament their loss by way of change and for potential gains to be seen as either illusory or outright mirages. Quite reminiscent of why Machiavelli said revolutions and regicide often fail, because those who do well out of the incumbent regime are staunch opponents, and supporters of change (for whom advantages are potential and may prove false) are lukewarm allies.
That's one of the reasons I thought, for a long time, Remain would win easily.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
It's becoming clearer by the day that staying out of the Euro was a terrible mistake.
Equally we would have destroyed the Euro in 2007-8 when the crash came - and if you think house prices are high in the UK imagine if the house price boom of 2003-7 had been on the scale it was in Ireland....
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
It's becoming clearer by the day that staying out of the Euro was a terrible mistake.
Equally we would have destroyed the Euro in 2007-8 when the crash came - and if you think house prices are high in the UK imagine if the house price boom of 2003-7 had been on the scale it was in Ireland....
Gordon Brown came into Number 11 promising not to let house prices get out of control.
Even if it were the case that lower interest rates meant a spike in house prices, it would have been much more obvious that this was happening, and there would have been a real impetus for better regulation of mortgage lending to stop the 125% loans and lax affordability criteria. In sum, it's possible that going into the Euro would have left us with a banking sector in much better shape, and would have tamed some of Gordon Brown's tendencies to ignore problems.
One reason why we really should have done a better job of this is that we had such recent experience of a damaging housing boom/bust cycle under Lawson.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
It's becoming clearer by the day that staying out of the Euro was a terrible mistake.
Equally we would have destroyed the Euro in 2007-8 when the crash came - and if you think house prices are high in the UK imagine if the house price boom of 2003-7 had been on the scale it was in Ireland....
Gordon Brown came into Number 11 promising not to let house prices get out of control.
Even if it were the case that lower interest rates meant a spike in house prices, it would have been much more obvious that this was happening, and there would have been a real impetus for better regulation of mortgage lending to stop the 125% loans and lax affordability criteria. In sum, it's possible that going into the Euro would have left us with a banking sector in much better shape, and would have tamed some of Gordon Brown's tendencies to ignore problems.
If you don't think house prices are out of control then you cannot see the impact current house prices are having on the economy....
Separately I will refer you to Ireland which supposedly had tougher lending restrictions than the UK did at the time.
Personally if you think because of X, Y would be different you really don't understand how Gordon Brown shrugged off responsibility for anything awkward....
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
It's becoming clearer by the day that staying out of the Euro was a terrible mistake.
Equally we would have destroyed the Euro in 2007-8 when the crash came - and if you think house prices are high in the UK imagine if the house price boom of 2003-7 had been on the scale it was in Ireland....
Gordon Brown came into Number 11 promising not to let house prices get out of control.
Even if it were the case that lower interest rates meant a spike in house prices, it would have been much more obvious that this was happening, and there would have been a real impetus for better regulation of mortgage lending to stop the 125% loans and lax affordability criteria. In sum, it's possible that going into the Euro would have left us with a banking sector in much better shape, and would have tamed some of Gordon Brown's tendencies to ignore problems.
If you don't think house prices are out of control then you cannot see the impact current house prices are having on the economy....
That's not what I said at all...
If you've got that from the opening sentence, I was lamenting that Brown didn't do what he promised, but that being in the Euro may have forced him to do so.
The Lord's powers of delay have been increased by the government opting for a two year session to consider Brexit Bills. The Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule a Lords veto in the next session. Sally a year away at most but now after Brexit. The government could of course change it's mind and prorogue early to start a new session. But that might cost a Billion or two for Northern Ireland with another Queen's Speech.
I think David Herdson is right. An unelected house with an appetite for self preservation won't block Brexit legislation. But if it did the two year session actually extends the Lord's delaying powers. The handsome and erudite Mr Meeks is also correct. There are a 101 ways the Lord's can slow things down without rejecting a Bill.
But all roads lead to Rome. Brexit is very easily reversed if voters change their minds. But the Buggers haven't. If they did all the technical problems about staying would vanish. It's a legal problem that would be quickly sorted. But there is no sign for a shift in public opinion. If Brexit becomes unpopular it will be stopped. So far it hasn't.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
Just a shame for you that the actual facts don't support the contention.
Why would it be a shame? I would be delighted to be wrong. My kids will build their lives and careers in Brexit Britain. There is no part of me that does not want it to succeed. My fear is that it will not.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
And one more:
When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006
Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
And do you think Leaving will halt it?
It gives us opportunities to address it. Whether we seize those opportunities or let them slide through our fingers is very much up to us and those we elect. The last point may be a problem of course. Are there any adults in the room?
We already have those opportunities. We are not the only EU member state with high levels of immigration. We do seem to be the only one with a serious productivity problem.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.
First, he admits that the "immediate shock" stuff that pro-Europeans and neutrals predicted did not come to pass. Then, he conflates current slower growth in the UK compared to the eurozone (entirely understandable whilst firms and businesses hold off investment pending knowledge of the final deal and trading arrangements) with an imagined future of wonders and riches had we remained. In fact, he uses those very words: imagined future.
Has he imagined a future where Britain thrives? Where it deepens and strengthens its global trading relationships, adopts a more flexible approach to regulation and has a well-structured immigration policy focussed on attracting the best talent from around the world?
Nope. He is counting all of the (imagined) lost opportunities, and discounting any new ones.
He then hopes for a crisis in 2019 to reverse the decision again.
His evidence base for this seems to be the period from 1945 to c.1975, before the UK joined the EEC. But the world was very different then. The UK was gradually shedding the sterling zone and its empire, trimming its heavy military spending, and becoming a post industrial society. Furthermore, the Western world utterly dominated the global economy, and the EEC formed a very big part of it.
It is true to say that the UK will gradually experience relative decline (as it has for over 100 years) relative to the rest of the world going forwards. So will the EU.
In 20 years I expect no difference in our overall relative level of wealth compared to other large EU countries, and, in fact, I think it may even be better.
And that's why you voted Leave. On my side, I do not see a single big problem we face that will be solved by leaving and I do not see how making it harder and more expensive to export to your largest market delivers benefits.
Mr. City, true. Cameron thought he'd canter to an easy victory. To be fair, many on the other side thought likewise. Many stars aligned for a Leave win. The terrible campaigning, Obama's idiotic intervention, Cameron's failure on the negotiation (forgivable) and his claiming it was great (less so).
The Lord's powers of delay have been increased by the government opting for a two year session to consider Brexit Bills. The Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule a Lords veto in the next session. Sally a year away at most but now after Brexit. The government could of course change it's mind and prorogue early to start a new session. But that might cost a Billion or two for Northern Ireland with another Queen's Speech.
I think David Herdson is right. An unelected house with an appetite for self preservation won't block Brexit legislation. But if it did the two year session actually extends the Lord's delaying powers. The handsome and erudite Mr Meeks is also correct. There are a 101 ways the Lord's can slow things down without rejecting a Bill.
But all roads lead to Rome. Brexit is very easily reversed if voters change their minds. But the Buggers haven't. If they did all the technical problems about staying would vanish. It's a legal problem that would be quickly sorted. But there is no sign for a shift in public opinion. If Brexit becomes unpopular it will be stopped. So far it hasn't.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
Just a shame for you that the actual facts don't support the contention.
Why would it be a shame? I would be delighted to be wrong. My kids will build their lives and careers in Brexit Britain. There is no part of me that does not want it to succeed. My fear is that it will not.
I was talking in the context of the article itself. I do understand that you are not one of those wishing for disaster. As I know I have said before, it is a shame there are not more like you.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
And one more:
When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006
Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
And do you think Leaving will halt it?
It gives us opportunities to address it. Whether we seize those opportunities or let them slide through our fingers is very much up to us and those we elect. The last point may be a problem of course. Are there any adults in the room?
We already have those opportunities. We are not the only EU member state with high levels of immigration. We do seem to be the only one with a serious productivity problem.
Indeed, so there must be something else behind the mentality that says leaving the EU gives us chance to address domestic political failings. The only way I can see it making sense is if the reason for not giving these issues sufficient attention is that our politics has become decadent and too consumed with arguments about Europe. Anyone thinking Brexit would improve our focus should surely have been disabused of that notion by now...
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
It's becoming clearer by the day that staying out of the Euro was a terrible mistake.
Equally we would have destroyed the Euro in 2007-8 when the crash came - and if you think house prices are high in the UK imagine if the house price boom of 2003-7 had been on the scale it was in Ireland....
Gordon Brown came into Number 11 promising not to let house prices get out of control.
Even if it were the case that lower interest rates meant a spike in house prices, it would have been much more obvious that this was happening, and there would have been a real impetus for better regulation of mortgage lending to stop the 125% loans and lax affordability criteria. In sum, it's possible that going into the Euro would have left us with a banking sector in much better shape, and would have tamed some of Gordon Brown's tendencies to ignore problems.
If you don't think house prices are out of control then you cannot see the impact current house prices are having on the economy....
That's not what I said at all...
If you've got that from the opening sentence, I was lamenting that Brown didn't do what he promised, but that being in the Euro may have forced him to do so.
Britain being in the Euro would have broken both the British economy and the Euro. You should be very grateful we never joined.
Mr. Eagles, as others have suspected, but it's an unforgivable sin to launch a campaign without being prepared. Not to mention being bloody stupid.
Morris their mindset was it was a forgone conclusion , not much preparation required.To be fair it was the same on here and I thought the same.
The problem wasn't the lack of preparation - Labour was similarly unprepared, as were the Scottish Tories. The problem was that so many seriously bad tactical and strategic errors were made during the campaign that they completely undermined the grand strategy. Lack of preparation was, for example, no excuse for writing the most unpopular manifesto in British history. Nor was it an excuse for airbrushing the economic achievements out of the campaign.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
And one more:
When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006
Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
And do you think Leaving will halt it?
It gives us opportunities to address it. Whether we seize those opportunities or let them slide through our fingers is very much up to us and those we elect. The last point may be a problem of course. Are there any adults in the room?
We already have those opportunities. We are not the only EU member state with high levels of immigration. We do seem to be the only one with a serious productivity problem.
We do not have the right to control the flow of unskilled and semi-skilled labour from the EU. This has consequences.
It is certainly not the solution on its own or any kind of magic panacea but I don't see anything perverse about it.
We have very low productivity. That is partly because the supply of labour is almost infinitely elastic. The whole EU world speaks English and wants to work here. There is no incentive to invest in training or technology because there is no risk that labour is going to become materially more expensive, even as we approach something like full employment.
Compressing the supply of labour may have short term adverse effects on the rate of growth but long term benefits provided we address the challenge. Having an economy that is dependent on 300K immigrants a year to make it grow is not a long term viable solution.
We have a very serious trade deficit. It is entirely with the EU, we have a surplus with the rest of the world. And we are supposed to be concerned that trade with the EU might become less frictionless? There will be opportunities for import substitution and greater integration of the supply base in the UK. Will we take those opportunities? Who knows, but the current EU situation does not work to our advantage (unlike, say, Germany).
I think that is sensible - but first, I really don't see a huge diminution in that kind of immigration following our departure. Plus I can't see a government promoting a policy which would have the effect of lowering profits for corporations and businesses, or of putting up prices for the consumer. Now they might (Jezza probably would), just that such policies haven't been hugely successful politically.
The idea of less immigration = higher productivity because there are fewer workers to do the same job is far from proven. There is preliminary research, in fact (here - Brexiter warning: from the same people as brought you the £4,300 household GDP diminution), which posits that immigration increases productivity in the native workforce.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
And one more:
When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006
Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
And do you think Leaving will halt it?
It gives us opportunities to address it. Whether we seize those opportunities or let them slide through our fingers is very much up to us and those we elect. The last point may be a problem of course. Are there any adults in the room?
We already have those opportunities. We are not the only EU member state with high levels of immigration. We do seem to be the only one with a serious productivity problem.
We do not have the right to control the flow of unskilled and semi-skilled labour from the EU. This has consequences.
Do not France and Germany have similar issues with such labour? Yet they seem to cope better than we do.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.
SNIP
In 20 years I expect no difference in our overall relative level of wealth compared to other large EU countries, and, in fact, I think it may even be better.
That is because it seems that you are economically illiterate.
Why not go the whole hog and say I'm stupid because I disagree with you?
I've decided I won't be discussing Brexit anymore with you, unless I perceive some new development or angle that is of interest to me.
Quite apart from your rudeness (which you consistently excuse on the basis that it's the internet and it's "anonymous") it's just become extremely boring and is a total waste of my time.
Are you an economist? Are you Patrick Minford? If the answer is no and no then you are ignoring a large body of informed, dare I say expert opinion that states we will be in a worse position economically following Brexit.
Mr. Eagles, as others have suspected, but it's an unforgivable sin to launch a campaign without being prepared. Not to mention being bloody stupid.
Morris their mindset was it was a forgone conclusion , not much preparation required.To be fair it was the same on here and I thought the same.
The problem wasn't the lack of preparation - Labour was similarly unprepared, as were the Scottish Tories. The problem was that so many seriously bad tactical and strategic errors were made during the campaign that they completely undermined the grand strategy. Lack of preparation was, for example, no excuse for writing the most unpopular manifesto in British history. Nor was it an excuse for airbrushing the economic achievements out of the campaign.
I don't disagree, but one of the advantages of calling a surprise election is in surprising the other side.
Mr. Eagles, as others have suspected, but it's an unforgivable sin to launch a campaign without being prepared. Not to mention being bloody stupid.
Morris their mindset was it was a forgone conclusion , not much preparation required.To be fair it was the same on here and I thought the same.
The problem wasn't the lack of preparation - Labour was similarly unprepared, as were the Scottish Tories. The problem was that so many seriously bad tactical and strategic errors were made during the campaign that they completely undermined the grand strategy. Lack of preparation was, for example, no excuse for writing the most unpopular manifesto in British history. Nor was it an excuse for airbrushing the economic achievements out of the campaign.
Actually Labour had assumed the Tories would spring a surprise election since the referendum, and had been preparing for once since then
Evelyn Waugh tells a better version in a letter to Nancy Mitford about the Queen talking to injured pilot - "I had this Fokker right on my tail, your Majesty" "You poor thing - I assume he was flying a Messerschmidt?"
That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.
[snip]
Has he imagined a future where Britain thrives? Where it deepens and strengthens its global trading relationships, adopts a more flexible approach to regulation and has a well-structured immigration policy focussed on attracting the best talent from around the world?
Nope. He is counting all of the (imagined) lost opportunities, and discounting any new ones.
[snip]
While a more globally connected Britain is possible, and can certainly be imagined, it is unlikely to happen in practice and there is no reason to believe it will. Leaving aside argument and rhetoric and go to the concrete, the here and now, the tyre hitting the road, Brexit is a disconnection. We have rejected the EU system without an alternative system. The EU won't allow us to trade with them in an integrated way unless we do it on their rules. Otherwise it undermines the system and potentially damages the interests of its members.
Third countries already deal with the EU on their system and don't particularly want us to do something different. There was a survey of US companies about what they would be looking for in US/UK trade deal and, by far, the top two wants was for the UK to stay in the EU Single Market and Customs Union. They had structured their investments on that assumption and they didn't see any upside to changing it. Mr Abe was saying something similar to Mrs May in Tokyo last week.
We can either go along with the EU system as rule takers and keep many of our current relationships going at some level or we reject the EU system and the Ganesh scenario kicks in. There isn't a likely scenario where we are ahead of where we are now, but if we go for the second we will probably go backwards a fair bit. We're already seeing the government taking the first approach with the so called "copycat trade deals". This isn't simply a matter of not having the time and resources to go bespoke. The UK is unlikely to get as good a deal as it currently enjoys through the EU, if it goes it alone.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.
SNIP
In 20 years I expect no difference in our overall relative level of wealth compared to other large EU countries, and, in fact, I think it may even be better.
That is because it seems that you are economically illiterate.
Why not go the whole hog and say I'm stupid because I disagree with you?
I've decided I won't be discussing Brexit anymore with you, unless I perceive some new development or angle that is of interest to me.
Quite apart from your rudeness (which you consistently excuse on the basis that it's the internet and it's "anonymous") it's just become extremely boring and is a total waste of my time.
Are you an economist? Are you Patrick Minford? If the answer is no and no then you are ignoring a large body of informed, dare I say expert opinion that states we will be in a worse position economically following Brexit.
I have been consistent in saying this for over two years: Brexit will increase the level of non-tariff barriers (it should make little difference to tariff barriers, unless there is no deal) between the UK and the EU, because we are leaving an economic union, and it will therefore affect the type and balance of our trading patterns. I expect it to have negative effects in the short-term, neutral in the medium-term and beneficial in the long-term.
Where we differ is the long-term effects. You think it materially matters, I don't. I consider 20 years to be long-term, and so post 2035 is an appropriate test.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.
SNIP
In 20 years I expect no difference in our overall relative level of wealth compared to other large EU countries, and, in fact, I think it may even be better.
That is because it seems that you are economically illiterate.
Why not go the whole hog and say I'm stupid because I disagree with you?
I've decided I won't be discussing Brexit anymore with you, unless I perceive some new development or angle that is of interest to me.
Quite apart from your rudeness (which you consistently excuse on the basis that it's the internet and it's "anonymous") it's just become extremely boring and is a total waste of my time.
Are you an economist? Are you Patrick Minford? If the answer is no and no then you are ignoring a large body of informed, dare I say expert opinion that states we will be in a worse position economically following Brexit.
And if he was an economist? I'm sorry but I've seen very little empirical evidence that we will be worse off, just people's prejudices dressed up as statements of fact.
The simple fact is that we are possibly going to be worse off after Brexit but that may be a short term impact and longer term we may be better off due to our need to be truly competitive... I suspect we won't get there but to be blunt its better than our current plan to increase GDP while trying to keep GDP per Capita at best static...
I think that is sensible - but first, I really don't see a huge diminution in that kind of immigration following our departure. Plus I can't see a government promoting a policy which would have the effect of lowering profits for corporations and businesses, or of putting up prices for the consumer. Now they might (Jezza probably would), just that such policies haven't been hugely successful politically.
The idea of less immigration = higher productivity because there are fewer workers to do the same job is far from proven. There is preliminary research, in fact (here - Brexiter warning: from the same people as brought you the £4,300 household GDP diminution), which posits that immigration increases productivity in the native workforce.
The doors will not be locked on departure. We will still need to encourage immigration, particularly of the skilled such as doctors and dentists on whom we rely because we do not train enough of our own. We will also need seasonal workers and academics and technicians and....
If you import a qualified joiner from Poland he is very likely to have higher productivity than the proceeds of our education system just starting out. So there is a short term gain in productivity by the import. But there is a long term cost if the employer chooses not to train the lad from school after all because he has got what he wants at no cost to him. That lad ends up unskilled and of low productivity for the rest of his life. Unfortunately this is where we are. Its not impossible to fix in the EU (the government's new apprenticeship scheme is a start) but it is harder because there are economic disincentives built in.
Mr. Topping, is that larger or smaller than the expert opinion that advocated joining the euro?
They said we would have been better off economically, which indeed we might have been. Who knows?
We might have been, but I reckon the great financial crisis and the size of our exposure to it would have torn the Eurozone asunder if we were members of the Euro
I think that is sensible - but first, I really don't see a huge diminution in that kind of immigration following our departure. Plus I can't see a government promoting a policy which would have the effect of lowering profits for corporations and businesses, or of putting up prices for the consumer. Now they might (Jezza probably would), just that such policies haven't been hugely successful politically.
The idea of less immigration = higher productivity because there are fewer workers to do the same job is far from proven. There is preliminary research, in fact (here - Brexiter warning: from the same people as brought you the £4,300 household GDP diminution), which posits that immigration increases productivity in the native workforce.
The doors will not be locked on departure. We will still need to encourage immigration, particularly of the skilled such as doctors and dentists on whom we rely because we do not train enough of our own. We will also need seasonal workers and academics and technicians and....
If you import a qualified joiner from Poland he is very likely to have higher productivity than the proceeds of our education system just starting out. So there is a short term gain in productivity by the import. But there is a long term cost if the employer chooses not to train the lad from school after all because he has got what he wants at no cost to him. That lad ends up unskilled and of low productivity for the rest of his life. Unfortunately this is where we are. Its not impossible to fix in the EU (the government's new apprenticeship scheme is a start) but it is harder because there are economic disincentives built in.
Yes I understand that but the NIESR paper says that the more skilled immigrant imparts knowledge to the less skilled worker and hence overall productivity increases in the native workforce.
Plus in my mind, increasing the qualitative output of our education system really doesn't have anything to do with whether we are in or out of the EU and nor should it. It should be a policy aim of all governments. Presumably it has been and it has not worked. Our presence in the EU has been irrelevant and I rather fear that our leaving the EU will likewise be irrelevant to our desired increase in skills and productivity.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.
SNIP
In 20 years I expect no difference in our overall relative level of wealth compared to other large EU countries, and, in fact, I think it may even be better.
That is because it seems that you are economically illiterate.
Why not go the whole hog and say I'm stupid because I disagree with you?
I've decided I won't be discussing Brexit anymore with you, unless I perceive some new development or angle that is of interest to me.
Quite apart from your rudeness (which you consistently excuse on the basis that it's the internet and it's "anonymous") it's just become extremely boring and is a total waste of my time.
Are you an economist? Are you Patrick Minford? If the answer is no and no then you are ignoring a large body of informed, dare I say expert opinion that states we will be in a worse position economically following Brexit.
And if he was an economist? I'm sorry but I've seen very little empirical evidence that we will be worse off, just people's prejudices dressed up as statements of fact.
The simple fact is that we are possibly going to be worse off after Brexit but that may be a short term impact and longer term we may be better off due to our need to be truly competitive... I suspect we won't get there but to be blunt its better than our current plan to increase GDP while trying to keep GDP per Capita at best static...
How would you see empirical evidence that we will be worse off in the future?
Plus again, as with @DavidL and plenty of others, you really are seeking a sink or swim approach to our need to become truly competitive. We need to swim the channel, so let's hole the boat we are in to force us to do so.
Mr. Topping, is that larger or smaller than the expert opinion that advocated joining the euro?
They said we would have been better off economically, which indeed we might have been. Who knows?
If that is a legitimate answer, it is also a legitimate answer to your slightly pompous claim "Are you an economist? Are you Patrick Minford? If the answer is no and no then you are ignoring a large body of informed, dare I say expert opinion that states we will be in a worse position economically following Brexit." That opinion might be right. Who knows?
Anyone claiming at 2155 on June 7th that NOM was going to be the result of the exit polls in 5 minutes time would be ignoring a much larger body of ... etc. etc. It is amazing how easy it is to get people to agree that the future is unknowable, and how impossible it is to get them to understand that what that means is that the actual future is, actually, unknowable.
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.
Lets look at some economic facts:
When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998 When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000 When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002 When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003
When did declinism begin ?
And one more:
When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006
Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
And do you think Leaving will halt it?
It gives us opportunities to address it. Whether we seize those opportunities or let them slide through our fingers is very much up to us and those we elect. The last point may be a problem of course. Are there any adults in the room?
We already have those opportunities. We are not the only EU member state with high levels of immigration. We do seem to be the only one with a serious productivity problem.
We do not have the right to control the flow of unskilled and semi-skilled labour from the EU. This has consequences.
Do not France and Germany have similar issues with such labour? Yet they seem to cope better than we do.
According to the most recent research the Germans are really struggling to integrate and employ the refugees that they let in. But I do think it depends on the culture. We once thought education was very important. Now, sadly, not so much. We have been admiring German training since the 19th century but have yet to match it. Put most refugees (in absorbable numbers) in an environment where that is the norm and they will thrive.
I think that is sensible - but first, I really don't see a huge diminution in that kind of immigration following our departure. Plus I can't see a government promoting a policy which would have the effect of lowering profits for corporations and businesses, or of putting up prices for the consumer. Now they might (Jezza probably would), just that such policies haven't been hugely successful politically.
The idea of less immigration = higher productivity because there are fewer workers to do the same job is far from proven. There is preliminary research, in fact (here - Brexiter warning: from the same people as brought you the £4,300 household GDP diminution), which posits that immigration increases productivity in the native workforce.
0.06% increase in productivity due to a 1% increase in migrant labour - I wouldn't even call that a rounding error let alone something you could actually measure.... Lets put it exactly how they describe it.
If production per a worker is 10000 units a year, a 1% increase in migrant labour (in theory) results in production of 10006 units per worker per year.
Do you still think the article is worth the digital atoms it uses..
This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:
That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.
SNIP
In 20 years I expect no difference in our overall relative level of wealth compared to other large EU countries, and, in fact, I think it may even be better.
That is because it seems that you are economically illiterate.
Why not go the whole hog and say I'm stupid because I disagree with you?
I've decided I won't be discussing Brexit anymore with you, unless I perceive some new development or angle that is of interest to me.
Quite apart from your rudeness (which you consistently excuse on the basis that it's the internet and it's "anonymous") it's just become extremely boring and is a total waste of my time.
Are you an economist? Are you Patrick Minford? If the answer is no and no then you are ignoring a large body of informed, dare I say expert opinion that states we will be in a worse position economically following Brexit.
And if he was an economist? I'm sorry but I've seen very little empirical evidence that we will be worse off, just people's prejudices dressed up as statements of fact.
The simple fact is that we are possibly going to be worse off after Brexit but that may be a short term impact and longer term we may be better off due to our need to be truly competitive... I suspect we won't get there but to be blunt its better than our current plan to increase GDP while trying to keep GDP per Capita at best static...
How would you see empirical evidence that we will be worse off in the future?
Well given the previous link you posted and I've just extrapolated for you something slightly better than that would be a starting point.
The simple fact is that we are possibly going to be worse off after Brexit but that may be a short term impact and longer term we may be better off due to our need to be truly competitive...
"The good thing about shooting your leg off is that it really forces you to make full use of your arms..."
The doors will not be locked on departure. We will still need to encourage immigration, particularly of the skilled such as doctors and dentists on whom we rely because we do not train enough of our own. We will also need seasonal workers and academics and technicians and....
If you import a qualified joiner from Poland he is very likely to have higher productivity than the proceeds of our education system just starting out. So there is a short term gain in productivity by the import. But there is a long term cost if the employer chooses not to train the lad from school after all because he has got what he wants at no cost to him. That lad ends up unskilled and of low productivity for the rest of his life. Unfortunately this is where we are. Its not impossible to fix in the EU (the government's new apprenticeship scheme is a start) but it is harder because there are economic disincentives built in.
Yes I understand that but the NIESR paper says that the more skilled immigrant imparts knowledge to the less skilled worker and hence overall productivity increases in the native workforce.
Plus in my mind, increasing the qualitative output of our education system really doesn't have anything to do with whether we are in or out of the EU and nor should it. It should be a policy aim of all governments. Presumably it has been and it has not worked. Our presence in the EU has been irrelevant and I rather fear that our leaving the EU will likewise be irrelevant to our desired increase in skills and productivity.
There is a risk that you prove to be right. I don't deny it. Leaving on its own will achieve little. Its what we do with it. As I asked a while ago, are there any adults in the room?
The simple fact is that we are possibly going to be worse off after Brexit but that may be a short term impact and longer term we may be better off due to our need to be truly competitive...
"The good thing about shooting your leg off is that it really forces you to make full use of your arms..."
I would argue its more like an escapologist taking the straight jacket off. There is still things to be done (some locks to undo and the water to escape from) but in theory he will be able to achieve that.
When people say we'll be worse off if we leave the EU, they should clarify whether they expect GDP per head to fall year on year after we leave, or whether they mean that it will rise less rapidly than would otherwise have been the case.
Mr. Topping, is that larger or smaller than the expert opinion that advocated joining the euro?
They said we would have been better off economically, which indeed we might have been. Who knows?
If that is a legitimate answer, it is also a legitimate answer to your slightly pompous claim "Are you an economist? Are you Patrick Minford? If the answer is no and no then you are ignoring a large body of informed, dare I say expert opinion that states we will be in a worse position economically following Brexit." That opinion might be right. Who knows?
Anyone claiming at 2155 on June 7th that NOM was going to be the result of the exit polls in 5 minutes time would be ignoring a much larger body of ... etc. etc. It is amazing how easy it is to get people to agree that the future is unknowable, and how impossible it is to get them to understand that what that means is that the actual future is, actually, unknowable.
One is a counter-factual, the other a forecast, but broadly, yes you are right.
Perhaps we would have been better off economically in the euro, but for me the red line was the necessary sovereignty (real sovereignty, as opposed to Brexiters' phantom sovereignty) that we would have surrendered by outsourcing our monetary policy to the ECB.
So hold on, you should be asking, I am allowed to make red lines on sovereignty yet I deny others' the same right (I also vehemently opposed the Fiscal Compact). But that is something of a category error. As has been rehearsed on here, and initially stated by the King of Brexit, we were always sovereign and such agreements we have made with the EU didn't impinge upon that.
I think that is sensible - but first, I really don't see a huge diminution in that kind of immigration following our departure. Plus I can't see a government promoting a policy which would have the effect of lowering profits for corporations and businesses, or of putting up prices for the consumer. Now they might (Jezza probably would), just that such policies haven't been hugely successful politically.
The idea of less immigration = higher productivity because there are fewer workers to do the same job is far from proven. There is preliminary research, in fact (here - Brexiter warning: from the same people as brought you the £4,300 household GDP diminution), which posits that immigration increases productivity in the native workforce.
0.06% increase in productivity due to a 1% increase in migrant labour - I wouldn't even call that a rounding error let alone something you could actually measure.... Lets put it exactly how they describe it.
If production per a worker is 10000 units a year, a 1% increase in migrant labour (in theory) results in production of 10006 units per worker per year.
Do you still think the article is worth the digital atoms it uses..
Just to be pedantic, it should be 10106 because there will be an increase of 100 workers and productivity per worker increases.
When people say we'll be worse off if we leave the EU, they should clarify whether they expect GDP per head to fall year on year after we leave, or whether they mean that it will rise less rapidly than would otherwise have been the case.
It depends whether all things remain equal. And if all things remain equal, will that really be Brexit?
I think that is sensible - but first, I really don't see a huge diminution in that kind of immigration following our departure. Plus I can't see a government promoting a policy which would have the effect of lowering profits for corporations and businesses, or of putting up prices for the consumer. Now they might (Jezza probably would), just that such policies haven't been hugely successful politically.
The idea of less immigration = higher productivity because there are fewer workers to do the same job is far from proven. There is preliminary research, in fact (here - Brexiter warning: from the same people as brought you the £4,300 household GDP diminution), which posits that immigration increases productivity in the native workforce.
0.06% increase in productivity due to a 1% increase in migrant labour - I wouldn't even call that a rounding error let alone something you could actually measure.... Lets put it exactly how they describe it.
If production per a worker is 10000 units a year, a 1% increase in migrant labour (in theory) results in production of 10006 units per worker per year.
Do you still think the article is worth the digital atoms it uses..
Just to be pedantic, it should be 10161 because there will be an increase of 100 workers and productivity per worker increases.
I didn't say how many workers there were to begin with nor whether it the migrant labour was additional labour or replacing retiring labour.
The only thing in my incredibly simple example was to show what 10000 looks like after a 0.06% increase in productivity...
Brexit will increase the level of non-tariff barriers
I expect it to have negative effects in the short-term, neutral in the medium-term and beneficial in the long-term.
There is no scenario where an increase in non-tariff barriers has a beneficial effect on any timescale
You clearly have difficulty in understanding English.
I was explaining my view of the overall economic effects on the UK economy. Let me make it simple for you:
(1) Non-tariff barriers will be permanently higher between the UK and EU if we leave than if we’d stayed (2) We will have the opportunity to strike deeper, more flexible, trade agreements, and flex our tax and regulatory regime, which we would not had we stayed
I think (2) outweighs (1) in the long-term, particularly since the balance of future global growth will favour (2) over (1), and therefore I assess a potential net benefit.
Mr. Topping, is that larger or smaller than the expert opinion that advocated joining the euro?
They said we would have been better off economically, which indeed we might have been. Who knows?
If that is a legitimate answer, it is also a legitimate answer to your slightly pompous claim "Are you an economist? Are you Patrick Minford? If the answer is no and no then you are ignoring a large body of informed, dare I say expert opinion that states we will be in a worse position economically following Brexit." That opinion might be right. Who knows?
Anyone claiming at 2155 on June 7th that NOM was going to be the result of the exit polls in 5 minutes time would be ignoring a much larger body of ... etc. etc. It is amazing how easy it is to get people to agree that the future is unknowable, and how impossible it is to get them to understand that what that means is that the actual future is, actually, unknowable.
I felt quite ill at 10 pm on June 7th, my aggregate betting strategy worked out well in the end but I was seriously wondering if I'd fucked up good and proper when Big Ben tolled.
I think that is sensible - but first, I really don't see a huge diminution in that kind of immigration following our departure. Plus I can't see a government promoting a policy which would have the effect of lowering profits for corporations and businesses, or of putting up prices for the consumer. Now they might (Jezza probably would), just that such policies haven't been hugely successful politically.
The idea of less immigration = higher productivity because there are fewer workers to do the same job is far from proven. There is preliminary research, in fact (here - Brexiter warning: from the same people as brought you the £4,300 household GDP diminution), which posits that immigration increases productivity in the native workforce.
0.06% increase in productivity due to a 1% increase in migrant labour - I wouldn't even call that a rounding error let alone something you could actually measure.... Lets put it exactly how they describe it.
If production per a worker is 10000 units a year, a 1% increase in migrant labour (in theory) results in production of 10006 units per worker per year.
Do you still think the article is worth the digital atoms it uses..
I don't like making connections between immigration and productivity because I believe the answer to increased productivity lies in our education system and that is independent of immigration.
But for those who say that immigration negatively affects productivity, here is a paper that says that it actually increases it. Take away the immigration and you take away that increase. Would lower immigration motivate schools to upskill their students in the face of pressure from business for plentiful, competent labour? Well first, that's a huge leap, and second, surely government policy has been trying to do that for decades, and hence I don't think the two things should be conflated.
I was explaining my view of the overall economic effects on the UK economy. Let me make it simple for you
I understood it perfectly, and you were simply wrong
There is no scenario where an increase in non-tariff barriers has a beneficial effect on any timescale
Our non-EU trade will always be a fraction of our EU trade. That is a matter of Geography, not politics
Except that fraction is already more than 1 while we're still in the EU. The EU has fallen already to less than half our trade and is declining annually - that is a matter of technology and progress not politics.
As technology continues to make geography less important and as the rest of the world develops both financially and demographically faster than Europe, our continent matters less and less than ever before.
Mr. Eagles, isn't that an incomplete quote, cutting out the bit about experts who have previously been quite wrong?
Specifically aimed at economic experts and their forecasting, IIRC. Quite prescient, really, when you consider the absence of a recession since the referendum.
Or maybe we all misheard and Gove was saying that we had had enough of expats?
When people say we'll be worse off if we leave the EU, they should clarify whether they expect GDP per head to fall year on year after we leave, or whether they mean that it will rise less rapidly than would otherwise have been the case.
I am far from convinced our EU membership represents the economic nirvana that many Remainers say it does, for the excellent reasons DavidL describes downthread.
I think the truth is it does for financial services - eurotrading, in particular - does favour a number of large multinationals, who appreciated a simplified uniform regulatory approach and ease of labour movement, and those with investments or property on the continent.
But, we had (and still do have) a whopping trade deficit with the EU, and there was a real go-slow on opening up services markets.
The deal seemed to be: you pay us a decent annual net payment, take our unemployed youth, and buy our goods; we'll buy some of yours in return, and let the City do its thing, and think about the rest in the future if you behave yourself regarding The Project.
Whisper it, but I think at HMG and civil service level we were members more for political reasons. All about those tired old clichés: seat at the table, members of the club, global influence, and steering the ship.
I think that is sensible - but first, I really don't see a huge diminution in that kind of immigration following our departure. Plus I can't see a government promoting a policy which would have the effect of lowering profits for corporations and businesses, or of putting up prices for the consumer. Now they might (Jezza probably would), just that such policies haven't been hugely successful politically.
The idea of less immigration = higher productivity because there are fewer workers to do the same job is far from proven. There is preliminary research, in fact (here - Brexiter warning: from the same people as brought you the £4,300 household GDP diminution), which posits that immigration increases productivity in the native workforce.
0.06% increase in productivity due to a 1% increase in migrant labour - I wouldn't even call that a rounding error let alone something you could actually measure.... Lets put it exactly how they describe it.
If production per a worker is 10000 units a year, a 1% increase in migrant labour (in theory) results in production of 10006 units per worker per year.
Do you still think the article is worth the digital atoms it uses..
I don't like making connections between immigration and productivity because I believe the answer to increased productivity lies in our education system and that is independent of immigration.
But for those who say that immigration negatively affects productivity, here is a paper that says that it actually increases it. Take away the immigration and you take away that increase. Would lower immigration motivate schools to upskill their students in the face of pressure from business for plentiful, competent labour? Well first, that's a huge leap, and second, surely government policy has been trying to do that for decades, and hence I don't think the two things should be conflated.
But if the best paper you can come up with shows immigration provides a productivity improvement of 0.06% (i.e. something so small it could easily be 0%) you really need a better argument. That's not to say I don't think migration potentially increases productivity (it probably does) I just don't see that article actually proving it.
The 2 things UK business lack is a willingness to invest and especially any willingness to invest in their workforce... And its the latter we need businesses to do entirely separate to our primary, secondary and tertiary education system...
That France and the UK think differently is one of the reasons why the EU could not be reformed in the way the UK would have preferred.
The completion of the single market was a very UK-minded reform.
The only thing stopping us from driving the agenda in a bold way since then was dragging our heels on the core principles of the Treaty of Rome. We lost the argument on the design of the Euro and since then we essentially gave up and sulked instead of accepting it. To this day there's a large body of opinion in the UK that doesn't accept the permanency of the Euro and can't wait for it to go away.
I don't like making connections between immigration and productivity because I believe the answer to increased productivity lies in our education system and that is independent of immigration.
But for those who say that immigration negatively affects productivity, here is a paper that says that it actually increases it. Take away the immigration and you take away that increase. Would lower immigration motivate schools to upskill their students in the face of pressure from business for plentiful, competent labour? Well first, that's a huge leap, and second, surely government policy has been trying to do that for decades, and hence I don't think the two things should be conflated.
Productivity has little to do with education and more to do with technology and choice.
The easy go to answer is to say that education is the panacea but it is not, the reality is that technology (which develops through education of course) is what makes the real difference. The reality is that virtually the entire workforce is not going to return to education and it is machinery rather than schools that drive a lot of productivity growth.
Some of the stagnating productivity is currently deliberate and is to improve service which can't be measured via productivity figures. 20 years ago if I wanted a coffee I'd go to a kettle, boil some water, add a teaspoon of instant coffee and some milk and job done. 10 years ago if I wanted a coffee I'd go to the nearby Subway and they'd put a cup under their machine, press a button and out would pop a latte. Now if I want a coffee I order a coffee and a barista steams milk and makes a fresh coffee.
Which of those is productive? The most productive coffee is for me to make instant myself. The least productive is paying a barista to steam milk by hand. But the intangible quality and service is what is getting paid for despite it being terribly unproductive.
The fact is we pay for the luxury of unproductive choices because we can afford to. It would be far cheaper to get a machine that does coffees and skip the barista and it would be cheaper still to get a kettle. But we decide we can afford to pay a barista because we enjoy the experience.
That France and the UK think differently is one of the reasons why the EU could not be reformed in the way the UK would have preferred.
The completion of the single market was a very UK-minded reform.
The only thing stopping us from driving the agenda in a bold way since then was dragging our heels on the core principles of the Treaty of Rome. We lost the argument on the design of the Euro and since then we essentially gave up and sulked instead of accepting it. To this day there's a large body of opinion in the UK that doesn't accept the permanency of the Euro and can't wait for it to go away.
My comment there would be that I believe the Euro as it currently exists has design flaws that will eventually be exposed. Hence its only permanent until an unsolvable problem (probably in either France or Italy) appears.....
Mr. Topping, is that larger or smaller than the expert opinion that advocated joining the euro?
They said we would have been better off economically, which indeed we might have been. Who knows?
If that is a legitimate answer, it is also a legitimate answer to your slightly pompous claim "Are you an economist? Are you Patrick Minford? If the answer is no and no then you are ignoring a large body of informed, dare I say expert opinion that states we will be in a worse position economically following Brexit." That opinion might be right. Who knows?
Anyone claiming at 2155 on June 7th that NOM was going to be the result of the exit polls in 5 minutes time would be ignoring a much larger body of ... etc. etc. It is amazing how easy it is to get people to agree that the future is unknowable, and how impossible it is to get them to understand that what that means is that the actual future is, actually, unknowable.
I felt quite ill at 10 pm on June 7th, my aggregate betting strategy worked out well in the end but I was seriously wondering if I'd fucked up good and proper when Big Ben tolled.
I can't imagine what that must have felt like. At 10pm I felt like Mark Corrigan in Peep Show when he discovers Jeremy got off with Sophie - both delighted and furious at the same time.
I don't like making connections between immigration and productivity because I believe the answer to increased productivity lies in our education system and that is independent of immigration.
But for those who say that immigration negatively affects productivity, here is a paper that says that it actually increases it. Take away the immigration and you take away that increase. Would lower immigration motivate schools to upskill their students in the face of pressure from business for plentiful, competent labour? Well first, that's a huge leap, and second, surely government policy has been trying to do that for decades, and hence I don't think the two things should be conflated.
Productivity has little to do with education and more to do with technology and choice.
The easy go to answer is to say that education is the panacea but it is not, the reality is that technology (which develops through education of course) is what makes the real difference. The reality is that virtually the entire workforce is not going to return to education and it is machinery rather than schools that drive a lot of productivity growth.
Some of the stagnating productivity is currently deliberate and is to improve service which can't be measured via productivity figures. 20 years ago if I wanted a coffee I'd go to a kettle, boil some water, add a teaspoon of instant coffee and some milk and job done. 10 years ago if I wanted a coffee I'd go to the nearby Subway and order a coffee and they'd press a button put a cup under their machine, press a button and out would pop a latte. Now if I want a coffee I order a coffee and a barista steams milk and makes a fresh coffee.
Which of those is productive? The most productive coffee is for me to make instant myself. The least productive is paying a barista to steam milk by hand. But the intangible quality and service is what is getting paid for despite it being terribly unproductive.
The fact is we pay for the luxury of unproductive choices because we can afford to. It would be far cheaper to get a machine that does coffees and skip the barista and it would be cheaper still to get a kettle. But we decide we can afford to pay a barista because we enjoy the experience.
I hate those nespresso machines, and the coffee they produce and there's even a nespresso shop in London, god help us.
As for productivity, you highlight an interesting point, and yes I have my car washed by a team of (probably) Latvians rather than in the BP car wash. But the fact remains that the UK's productivity lags well behind our neighbours' and we would do a lot better if we could improve it.
I hate those nespresso machines, and the coffee they produce and there's even a nespresso shop in London, god help us.
As for productivity, you highlight an interesting point, and yes I have my car washed by a team of (probably) Latvians rather than in the BP car wash. But the fact remains that the UK's productivity lags well behind our neighbours' and we would do a lot better if we could improve it.
Indeed car washing is another great example. The idea of paying someone to wash your car by hand was alien for the vast majority 20 years ago, either you washed your own car or went through the automatic car wash. Now so many get their cars washed by hand. We could up our productivity by using automatic car washes but the less productive hand washes are perceived to be better.
Yes we could do better if we improve it and we should try. But there are many intangibles like service and quality that can't be measured in these aggregate statistics.
I think that is sensible - but first, I really don't see a huge diminution in that kind of immigration following our departure. Plus I can't see a government promoting a policy which would have the effect of lowering profits for corporations and businesses, or of putting up prices for the consumer. Now they might (Jezza probably would), just that such policies haven't been hugely successful politically.
The idea of lesworkforce.
0.06% increase in productivity due to a 1% increase in migrant labour - I wouldn't even call that a rounding error let alone something you could actually measure.... Lets put it exactly how they describe it.
If production per a worker is 10000 units a year, a 1% increase in migrant labour (in theory) results in production of 10006 units per worker per year.
Do you still think the article is worth the digital atoms it uses..
I don't like making connections between immigration and productivity because I believe the answer to increased productivity lies in our education system and that is independent of immigration.
But for those who say that immigration negatively affects productivity, here is a paper that says that it actually increases it. Take away the immigration and you take away that increase. Would lower immigration motivate schools to upskill their students in the face of pressure from business for plentiful, competent labour? Well first, that's a huge leap, and second, surely government policy has been trying to do that for decades, and hence I don't think the two things should be conflated.
But if the best paper you can come up with shows immigration provides a productivity improvement of 0.06% (i.e. something so small it could easily be 0%) you really need a better argument. That's not to say I don't think migration potentially increases productivity (it probably does) I just don't see that article actually proving it.
The 2 things UK business lack is a willingness to invest and especially any willingness to invest in their workforce... And its the latter we need businesses to do entirely separate to our primary, secondary and tertiary education system...
First, it wasn't the best paper, it was the first one on Google. As I also said, it seems immigration is neutral towards productivity but you keep on banging on about it.
Secondly, businesses want cheap, competent labour. Often ideally, I would imagine, English-speaking. Nor can they all invest in training and arguably why should they beyond a basic level. This workforce is not being provided by our education system. That is the issue; if it was being provided then our productivity would increase.
When people say we'll be worse off if we leave the EU, they should clarify whether they expect GDP per head to fall year on year after we leave, or whether they mean that it will rise less rapidly than would otherwise have been the case.
We will have even fewer public services and the quality of provision will get worse. There will be less public and private investment in infrastructure and wages growth will be lower than it otherwise would have been. Jobs and tax revenues that might have been created in the UK will be created elsewhere instead. It will be a drip, drip, drip - not a big bang.
Mr. Eagles, isn't that an incomplete quote, cutting out the bit about experts who have previously been quite wrong?
Also, this food is safe is present tense, which is fine. Experts do present and past statements; overly confident future statements are the preserve of soothsayers and conmen.
Also, Gove's statement about the British public turns out to have been bang on the money, doesn't it? That's expertise for you.
Comments
That's one of the reasons I thought, for a long time, Remain would win easily.
We have decided that not only will we make those adjustments, but we will do so, in a politically equivalent timeframe, by a week next Thursday. And this is to assume that anyone, not Lab, not Cons actually has the cojones to make them in the first place. This is not to say we can't make them, just that the preparation and groundwork required to give them any chance of success will take more than the time available.
Voting to Leave the EU if or because we want to upskill and increase our productivity is, if I may say, a perverse way of going about it.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/849249/John-Bolton-Nigel-Farage-EU-Brexit-Brussels?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain
All Hail the wonderful Tories.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/23/why-a-1997-style-landslide-or-even-a-1983-style-landslide-might-not-happen-but-maybe-a-2005-style-majority-of-66-will/
We have very low productivity. That is partly because the supply of labour is almost infinitely elastic. The whole EU world speaks English and wants to work here. There is no incentive to invest in training or technology because there is no risk that labour is going to become materially more expensive, even as we approach something like full employment.
Compressing the supply of labour may have short term adverse effects on the rate of growth but long term benefits provided we address the challenge. Having an economy that is dependent on 300K immigrants a year to make it grow is not a long term viable solution.
We have a very serious trade deficit. It is entirely with the EU, we have a surplus with the rest of the world. And we are supposed to be concerned that trade with the EU might become less frictionless? There will be opportunities for import substitution and greater integration of the supply base in the UK. Will we take those opportunities? Who knows, but the current EU situation does not work to our advantage (unlike, say, Germany).
I've decided I won't be discussing Brexit anymore with you, unless I perceive some new development or angle that is of interest to me.
Quite apart from your rudeness (which you consistently excuse on the basis that it's the internet and it's "anonymous") it's just become extremely boring and is a total waste of my time.
I doubt the European Central Bank are that worried, Brexit and all that
Even if it were the case that lower interest rates meant a spike in house prices, it would have been much more obvious that this was happening, and there would have been a real impetus for better regulation of mortgage lending to stop the 125% loans and lax affordability criteria. In sum, it's possible that going into the Euro would have left us with a banking sector in much better shape, and would have tamed some of Gordon Brown's tendencies to ignore problems.
One reason why we really should have done a better job of this is that we had such recent experience of a damaging housing boom/bust cycle under Lawson.
https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/904997436845936640
Separately I will refer you to Ireland which supposedly had tougher lending restrictions than the UK did at the time.
Personally if you think because of X, Y would be different you really don't understand how Gordon Brown shrugged off responsibility for anything awkward....
If you've got that from the opening sentence, I was lamenting that Brown didn't do what he promised, but that being in the Euro may have forced him to do so.
The idea of less immigration = higher productivity because there are fewer workers to do the same job is far from proven. There is preliminary research, in fact (here - Brexiter warning: from the same people as brought you the £4,300 household GDP diminution), which posits that immigration increases productivity in the native workforce.
O/T I don't recall this rally from the US campaign, can anyone here remember it?
https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/904883299318808576
What a bunch of flamin' galahs.
Peppa Pig 'spiders can't hurt you' episode pulled off air in Australia – again
Episode aired on pay TV after earlier being deemed inappropriate for audiences in Australia, home to dangerous spiders
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/sep/05/peppa-pig-spiders-cant-hurt-you-episode-pulled-off-air-in-australia-again
Third countries already deal with the EU on their system and don't particularly want us to do something different. There was a survey of US companies about what they would be looking for in US/UK trade deal and, by far, the top two wants was for the UK to stay in the EU Single Market and Customs Union. They had structured their investments on that assumption and they didn't see any upside to changing it. Mr Abe was saying something similar to Mrs May in Tokyo last week.
We can either go along with the EU system as rule takers and keep many of our current relationships going at some level or we reject the EU system and the Ganesh scenario kicks in. There isn't a likely scenario where we are ahead of where we are now, but if we go for the second we will probably go backwards a fair bit. We're already seeing the government taking the first approach with the so called "copycat trade deals". This isn't simply a matter of not having the time and resources to go bespoke. The UK is unlikely to get as good a deal as it currently enjoys through the EU, if it goes it alone.
Where we differ is the long-term effects. You think it materially matters, I don't. I consider 20 years to be long-term, and so post 2035 is an appropriate test.
Therefore, I stand by what I said.
The simple fact is that we are possibly going to be worse off after Brexit but that may be a short term impact and longer term we may be better off due to our need to be truly competitive... I suspect we won't get there but to be blunt its better than our current plan to increase GDP while trying to keep GDP per Capita at best static...
If you import a qualified joiner from Poland he is very likely to have higher productivity than the proceeds of our education system just starting out. So there is a short term gain in productivity by the import. But there is a long term cost if the employer chooses not to train the lad from school after all because he has got what he wants at no cost to him. That lad ends up unskilled and of low productivity for the rest of his life. Unfortunately this is where we are. Its not impossible to fix in the EU (the government's new apprenticeship scheme is a start) but it is harder because there are economic disincentives built in.
Plus in my mind, increasing the qualitative output of our education system really doesn't have anything to do with whether we are in or out of the EU and nor should it. It should be a policy aim of all governments. Presumably it has been and it has not worked. Our presence in the EU has been irrelevant and I rather fear that our leaving the EU will likewise be irrelevant to our desired increase in skills and productivity.
Plus again, as with @DavidL and plenty of others, you really are seeking a sink or swim approach to our need to become truly competitive. We need to swim the channel, so let's hole the boat we are in to force us to do so.
Edit: still loving my Conor McGregor analogy.
Anyone claiming at 2155 on June 7th that NOM was going to be the result of the exit polls in 5 minutes time would be ignoring a much larger body of ... etc. etc. It is amazing how easy it is to get people to agree that the future is unknowable, and how impossible it is to get them to understand that what that means is that the actual future is, actually, unknowable.
If production per a worker is 10000 units a year, a 1% increase in migrant labour (in theory) results in production of 10006 units per worker per year.
Do you still think the article is worth the digital atoms it uses..
Equally it could all go horribly wrong...
Perhaps we would have been better off economically in the euro, but for me the red line was the necessary sovereignty (real sovereignty, as opposed to Brexiters' phantom sovereignty) that we would have surrendered by outsourcing our monetary policy to the ECB.
So hold on, you should be asking, I am allowed to make red lines on sovereignty yet I deny others' the same right (I also vehemently opposed the Fiscal Compact). But that is something of a category error. As has been rehearsed on here, and initially stated by the King of Brexit, we were always sovereign and such agreements we have made with the EU didn't impinge upon that.
The only thing in my incredibly simple example was to show what 10000 looks like after a 0.06% increase in productivity...
I was explaining my view of the overall economic effects on the UK economy. Let me make it simple for you:
(1) Non-tariff barriers will be permanently higher between the UK and EU if we leave than if we’d stayed
(2) We will have the opportunity to strike deeper, more flexible, trade agreements, and flex our tax and regulatory regime, which we would not had we stayed
I think (2) outweighs (1) in the long-term, particularly since the balance of future global growth will favour (2) over (1), and therefore I assess a potential net benefit.
But for those who say that immigration negatively affects productivity, here is a paper that says that it actually increases it. Take away the immigration and you take away that increase. Would lower immigration motivate schools to upskill their students in the face of pressure from business for plentiful, competent labour? Well first, that's a huge leap, and second, surely government policy has been trying to do that for decades, and hence I don't think the two things should be conflated.
There is no scenario where an increase in non-tariff barriers has a beneficial effect on any timescale
Our non-EU trade will always be a fraction of our EU trade. That is a matter of Geography, not politics
As technology continues to make geography less important and as the rest of the world develops both financially and demographically faster than Europe, our continent matters less and less than ever before.
Or maybe we all misheard and Gove was saying that we had had enough of expats?
That story is always slightly undermined by the fact that the only Fokker fighter in WWII flew in the Dutch airforce.
Edit: some also flew in the Finnish airforce I see.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4394889/theresa-may-will-lead-the-tories-into-2022-general-election-and-will-prove-she-isnt-just-about-brexit-with-domestic-reform-plan-claims-her-deputy-damian-green/
I think the truth is it does for financial services - eurotrading, in particular - does favour a number of large multinationals, who appreciated a simplified uniform regulatory approach and ease of labour movement, and those with investments or property on the continent.
But, we had (and still do have) a whopping trade deficit with the EU, and there was a real go-slow on opening up services markets.
The deal seemed to be: you pay us a decent annual net payment, take our unemployed youth, and buy our goods; we'll buy some of yours in return, and let the City do its thing, and think about the rest in the future if you behave yourself regarding The Project.
Whisper it, but I think at HMG and civil service level we were members more for political reasons. All about those tired old clichés: seat at the table, members of the club, global influence, and steering the ship.
The 2 things UK business lack is a willingness to invest and especially any willingness to invest in their workforce... And its the latter we need businesses to do entirely separate to our primary, secondary and tertiary education system...
The only thing stopping us from driving the agenda in a bold way since then was dragging our heels on the core principles of the Treaty of Rome. We lost the argument on the design of the Euro and since then we essentially gave up and sulked instead of accepting it. To this day there's a large body of opinion in the UK that doesn't accept the permanency of the Euro and can't wait for it to go away.
The easy go to answer is to say that education is the panacea but it is not, the reality is that technology (which develops through education of course) is what makes the real difference. The reality is that virtually the entire workforce is not going to return to education and it is machinery rather than schools that drive a lot of productivity growth.
Some of the stagnating productivity is currently deliberate and is to improve service which can't be measured via productivity figures. 20 years ago if I wanted a coffee I'd go to a kettle, boil some water, add a teaspoon of instant coffee and some milk and job done. 10 years ago if I wanted a coffee I'd go to the nearby Subway and they'd put a cup under their machine, press a button and out would pop a latte. Now if I want a coffee I order a coffee and a barista steams milk and makes a fresh coffee.
Which of those is productive? The most productive coffee is for me to make instant myself. The least productive is paying a barista to steam milk by hand. But the intangible quality and service is what is getting paid for despite it being terribly unproductive.
The fact is we pay for the luxury of unproductive choices because we can afford to. It would be far cheaper to get a machine that does coffees and skip the barista and it would be cheaper still to get a kettle. But we decide we can afford to pay a barista because we enjoy the experience.
http://www.politico.eu/article/germany-election-campaign-fake-news-angela-merkel-trump-digital-misinformation/
Would (or should) the UK ever accept such fettering of free speech, however well intentioned ?
http://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-may-damian-green-will-prove-shes-about-more-than-brexit-says-her-deputy/
As for productivity, you highlight an interesting point, and yes I have my car washed by a team of (probably) Latvians rather than in the BP car wash. But the fact remains that the UK's productivity lags well behind our neighbours' and we would do a lot better if we could improve it.
Scientists should not exaggerate or hide data, but Climate Change is real.
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/
Yes we could do better if we improve it and we should try. But there are many intangibles like service and quality that can't be measured in these aggregate statistics.
Secondly, businesses want cheap, competent labour. Often ideally, I would imagine, English-speaking. Nor can they all invest in training and arguably why should they beyond a basic level. This workforce is not being provided by our education system. That is the issue; if it was being provided then our productivity would increase.
https://twitter.com/JumMurphy/status/905020336009302020
Also, Gove's statement about the British public turns out to have been bang on the money, doesn't it? That's expertise for you.