Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement and ECJ jurisdiction as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signed
I pretty much agree with 1-5, actually. The white man effectively stole the world in the C19th; consider the real meaning of "won" in "How the West was Won", and of "Wars" in "the Indian Wars"; like talking about Germany's Jewish wars. Then having cleared out the red blokes we stole several million black people and put them to work to assure Europe's vital sugar supply.
LOL! So the ONS messed up the stats BEFORE the referendum. Conveniently for the government, the mess up showed the country doing better than it actually was.
Forget the half trillion bound error and look at the FDI figures.
What we're the pre-revision numbers?
Apparently that's one of the few things they got right, the numbers at least.
What they got wrong was the money actually invested in H2 2016 most of it had been committed in advance of the referendum
Would that not be the case for all investment? Not that it makes much difference, of course.
The problem with numbers like FDI is that people don't feel them. Unemployment and inflation, on the other hand, are easier to grasp.
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What would some of the terms of a deal that was worse than no deal be?
Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signed
Long before March 2019 we are going to get a very clear idea of what a No Deal involves. Foreign direct investment in the UK has fallen from +£125 billion in H1 2016 to -£25 billion in H1 2017. If things continue at the same rate, we are looking at around -£300 billion by the end of March 2019.
Oh, and Starmer's position is, as @NickPalmer pointed out, simply not to be the Cons, right now. Jezza can keep the ideological, puppy flank shored up with his loono pronouncements (which are getting fewer, btw) while Starmer can be seen as the sane one fulfilling the opposition's duty to oppose.
Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signed
Long before March 2019 we are going to get a very clear idea of what a No Deal involves. Foreign direct investment in the UK has fallen from +£125 billion in H1 2016 to -£25 billion in H1 2017. If things continue at the same rate, we are looking at around -£300 billion by the end of March 2019.
-£300Bn from where they were, or where the ONS originally thought they were?
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signed
Long before March 2019 we are going to get a very clear idea of what a No Deal involves. Foreign direct investment in the UK has fallen from +£125 billion in H1 2016 to -£25 billion in H1 2017. If things continue at the same rate, we are looking at around -£300 billion by the end of March 2019.
We will see but at the moment UK public opinion is opposed to paying more than £10 billion to the EU let alone £50 to £100 billion. Plus even if that sum was paid I cannot see the EU agreeing to a deal within a reasonable time unless the UK retains free movement
Oh, and Starmer's position is, as @NickPalmer pointed out, simply not to be the Cons, right now. Jezza can keep the ideological, puppy flank shored up with his loono pronouncements (which are getting fewer, btw) while Starmer can be seen as the sane one fulfilling the opposition's duty to oppose.
The other thing in Starmer and Labour's favour is that a lot of the Tories said Brexit would be easy, it would be a land of sunlit uplands, whereas he said they were talking pish.
If Project Fear becomes Project Reality, then the Tory Leavers in government are going to be in a very awkward place.
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What would some of the terms of a deal that was worse than no deal be?
A deal that only came to fruition after several years, during which both sides have developed an animosity for each other, and whose clauses are more political than practical (i.e. made to please populations rather than actually work). A deal where the clauses are massively open to interpretation that will keep all sides in court for years, stifling trade and investment. A deal where one side, or both, decide that the deal needs renegotiating after a few months due to legal irregularities.
This might very well happen.
This whole situation is a mess. And despite what Mr Dancer says, it is mostly our fault.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
Mr. Observer, as I've said before, most people like the economics of the EU but not the politics. We were never asked about either. The madness of being in a position whereby leaving apparently risks planes not flying is not one of the electorate's making. Not unlike foreign aid, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate has no effective power to make a change.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
Mr. Observer, as I've said before, most people like the economics of the EU but not the politics. We were never asked about either. The madness of being in a position whereby leaving apparently risks planes not flying is not one of the electorate's making. Not unlike foreign aid, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate has no effective power to make a change.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Eagles, isn't the UK your country?
The UK is my country, and always will be, but it is clear Brexit and Corbyn are going to be very damaging to my finances and that of my family, both Brexit and Corbyn are effectively targeting people like me, so I'm taking preventive measures.
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Secondly, one where we accept single market status, but only after a transition under which the aquis of the EA can be move d forward without UK input (again, the potential to be attacked by the other states including EFTA nations is quite dangerous).
Thirdly, one where UK territorial integrity is attacked both in the land and maritime arenas, so that means ECJ gets some status in NI, or CFP is retained with ECJ/Commission control.
Fourthly, one where the arbiter of future trade and treaty disputes is not entirely independent from the parties.
And that's just off the top of my head, any serious study of potential outcomes would find other real disincentives that might be on the table.
So after the jubilant crowing by Leavers that the economy was strong and investment flowing despite the referendum result, it turns out that as predicted we have taken a massive hit. Boris has screwed the country for his own ambitions
It is beginning to look like Project Fear was only wrong in the timing.
Wrong in the timing = wrong for all practical purposes. Just as, if you say to every patient you see this week "you are going to die," your prognosis success rate will eventually hit 100%.
Your logic is incorrect. If you say to a cancer patient, I think you will have six months and he lives for two years, the timing is wrong (perhaps in a good way), but you got the key facts correct; that he has cancer and will die of it within the short to medium term. The fact the patient will eventually die of something or other, maybe decades later, is irrelevant to the prognosis.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Mr. Observer, as I've said before, most people like the economics of the EU but not the politics. We were never asked about either. The madness of being in a position whereby leaving apparently risks planes not flying is not one of the electorate's making. Not unlike foreign aid, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate has no effective power to make a change.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Eagles, isn't the UK your country?
The UK is my country, and always will be, but it is clear Brexit and Corbyn are going to be very damaging to my finances and that of my family, both Brexit and Corbyn are effectively targeting people like me, so I'm taking preventive measures.
I expect if Corbyn gets in many PB Tories will be commenting from Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Singapore or Barbados for the duration of his term, the US and Macron's France might also be an option provided Sanders or Warren and Melenchon don't follow or precede Corbyn
imagine, Osborne consistemtly underfunding ONS has come a cropper
who'd a thunk it ?
I remember the days when you used to criticise Ozzy for not reducing the deficit quick enough.
When George Osborne walks on water, you'll be criticising him for not being able to swim.
Of course I crtiicised him for not reducing the deficit - still do
but spending £50 million boosting ONS is chicken shit given the need for accurate data to steer the place in the right direction
Catbert never had any problems finding money when it was one of his pet projects
The bigger problem for the ONS was the move to Newport. Nobody wanted to leave London so they lost quite a lot of experience. However, given the way things have gone since the move, they're probably in quite a good spot as South Wales is an affordable place to live.
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
So you're anti-vaccine as well. Noted.
Nope. I’m anti-Katie Hopkins and clicked that link expecting a ridiculous sensationalist rant.
Her points were perfectly reasonable and the editing & presentation of the counter case was good.
Credit where credit is due.
I’m generally pro vaccine - but aiui, the case for flu vaccines for 8yo kids is pretty marginal. Meningitis, mmr etc is a different calculation and imo they should basically be compulsory. I’m strongly pro-hpv for boys, too.
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
So you're anti-vaccine as well. Noted.
Nope. I’m anti-Katie Hopkins and clicked that link expecting a ridiculous sensationalist rant.
Her points were perfectly reasonable and the editing & presentation of the counter case was good.
Credit where credit is due.
I’m generally pro vaccine - but aiui, the case for flu vaccines for 8yo kids is pretty marginal. Meningitis, mmr etc is a different calculation and imo they should basically be compulsory. I’m strongly pro-hpv for boys, too.
Can you provide me with your medical credentials?
I know it is an unfashionable view these days, but I trust the experts.
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
The Dilnot Report estimated their proposal of capping personal costs and raising asset threshold would cost 1.7bn/year, rising to 3.6bn/year by 2025/26.
So Labour setting aside 3bn/year and leaving themselves flexibility on how high the cap would be and what the asset threshold is seems reasonable.
The 3 billion pound figure could be raised by putting ~ 0.5 p on income tax.
That is such a tiny, tiny amount. No-one would notice it.
Does it even sound plausible that the problems in our care service could be solved by such a tiny amount ?
If so, why didn’t Blair do it? Or Brown do it? Or Cameron do it? Or the Coalition do it?
The roots of the Dementia Tax go back a long way -- as I pointed out, the phrase was coined by the Alzheimer’s society in 2007. All these politicians didn’t realise the problem could be fixed by spending a tiny amount of money?
It is a fairy story to think problems as substantial, severe and growing as our ageing population can be solved in an easy way without pain. I am afraid there were a lot of fairy stories in the costings of the Labour Party manifesto.
I speak as someone whose mother passed away from dementia, and I can tell you the presence system (which goes back to Blair) is unbearably wicked & cruel. I’d like to see a National Care Service.
But, we sure as hell won’t get one if you think it will only cost 0.5 p on everyone’s income tax.
If you think 3bn/year is a tiny meaningless amount - then take it up with Andrew Dilnot not me. I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.
Your figure of 18bn looks very suspect. Spending on adult social care by local authorities was 17bn in 2015/16. We can approximate 1/2 of that on the >65 year old range
So you are talking about roughly tripling expenditure. That doesn't seem right. It also sounds like the kind of proposal Corbyn would get heavily criticised for being unrealistic...
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Secondly, one where we accept single market status, but only after a transition under which the aquis of the EA can be move d forward without UK input (again, the potential to be attacked by the other states including EFTA nations is quite dangerous).
Thirdly, one where UK territorial integrity is attacked both in the land and maritime arenas, so that means ECJ gets some status in NI, or CFP is retained with ECJ/Commission control.
Fourthly, one where the arbiter of future trade and treaty disputes is not entirely independent from the parties.
And that's just off the top of my head, any serious study of potential outcomes would find other real disincentives that might be on the table.
Given that what you are saying in all but scenario two is that the current status quo is worse than a No Deal that will cause immense damage to the UK economy and its finances - and therefore the living standards and quality of life of tens of millions of people - I just cannot agree with you. I'm afraid. Or maybe we have different views on what a No Deal actually means?
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Secondly, one where we accept single market status, but only after a transition under which the aquis of the EA can be move d forward without UK input (again, the potential to be attacked by the other states including EFTA nations is quite dangerous).
Thirdly, one where UK territorial integrity is attacked both in the land and maritime arenas, so that means ECJ gets some status in NI, or CFP is retained with ECJ/Commission control.
Fourthly, one where the arbiter of future trade and treaty disputes is not entirely independent from the parties.
And that's just off the top of my head, any serious study of potential outcomes would find other real disincentives that might be on the table.
Without any discussion you totally discount the EU offering anything of value through the 800 treaties that we have with them, through the Single Market that makes up 50% of our trade, through their system of third party trade deals, through their regulatory system etc etc. If you only see one side of the balance sheet you won't be able to evaluate whether the settlement is a good one or not.
Except in reality the Tories are actually now more united on Europe than Labour, 80% of 2017 Tory voters and members now back Brexit and leaving the single market to control free movement and not paying a vast exit bill to the EU. Most Tory MPs are also now firm Brexiteers too apart from a few diehards like Clarke and Soubry and bow it seems Hammond.
By contrast while the Labour leadership backs leaving the single market probably at least half its MPs and voters and members do not while the other half of its MPs do back leaving the single market to end free movement as they represent Leave seats. Yestererday Starmer was talking of not leaving without a deal while keeping exit payments as low as possible, logically impossible.
So it is actually the LDs who we most united in opposition to Brexit and leaving the single market, the Tories are becoming increasingly United on backing Brexit and leaving the single market while Labour is split.
But are doing a very good job of avoiding blowback from that. The benefits of positive political momentum and a fatally wounded opponent.
That cannot last beyond March 2019, then Corbyn will either have to back the government and not pay a vast sum to the EU and leave the EU without a deal, or oppose the government and agree to pay a vast sum to the EU and also likely agree to semi permanent free movement as part of a transition agreement until that deal is signed
Long before March 2019 we are going to get a very clear idea of what a No Deal involves. Foreign direct investment in the UK has fallen from +£125 billion in H1 2016 to -£25 billion in H1 2017. If things continue at the same rate, we are looking at around -£300 billion by the end of March 2019.
-£300Bn from where they were, or where the ONS originally thought they were?
The FDI part of the story is not an ONS recalculation, it is the figure as released.
Despite all the Tory woes, Labour can only scrape together a tiny lead, smaller than the ones enjoyed by Kinnock and Miliband between elections. It continues to hero worship a hard left economically illiterate leader who is scared to go on the Today programme.
Those predicting a Corbyn government on the back of Tory woes might end up looking as foolish in the end as those forecasting a Tory landslide in June.
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
So Labour setting aside 3bn/year and leaving themselves flexibility on how high the cap would be and what the asset threshold is seems reasonable.
The 3 billion pound figure could be raised by putting ~ 0.5 p on income tax.
That is such a tiny, tiny amount. No-one would notice it.
Does it even sound plausible that the problems in our care service could be solved by such a tiny amount ?
If so, why didn’t Blair do it? Or Brown do it? Or Cameron do it? Or the Coalition do it?
The roots of the Dementia Tax go back a long way -- as I pointed out, the phrase was coined by the Alzheimer’s society in 2007. All these politicians didn’t realise the problem could be fixed by spending a tiny amount of money?
It is a fairy story to think problems as substantial, severe and growing as our ageing population can be solved in an easy way without pain. I am afraid there were a lot of fairy stories in the costings of the Labour Party manifesto.
I speak as someone whose mother passed away from dementia, and I can tell you the presence system (which goes back to Blair) is unbearably wicked & cruel. I’d like to see a National Care Service.
But, we sure as hell won’t get one if you think it will only cost 0.5 p on everyone’s income tax.
If you think 3bn/year is a tiny meaningless amount - then take it up with Andrew Dilnot not me. I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.
Your figure of 18bn looks very suspect. Spending on adult social care by local authorities was 17bn in 2015/16. We can approximate 1/2 of that on the >65 year old range
So you are talking about roughly tripling expenditure. That doesn't seem right. It also sounds like the kind of proposal Corbyn would get heavily criticised for being unrealistic...
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What would some of the terms of a deal that was worse than no deal be?
A deal that only came to fruition after several years, during which both sides have developed an animosity for each other, and whose clauses are more political than practical (i.e. made to please populations rather than actually work). A deal where the clauses are massively open to interpretation that will keep all sides in court for years, stifling trade and investment. A deal where one side, or both, decide that the deal needs renegotiating after a few months due to legal irregularities.
This might very well happen.
This whole situation is a mess. And despite what Mr Dancer says, it is mostly our fault.
But if it only came to fruition after several years, we would already have a transitional, wouldn't we and so more room to manoeuvre. My understanding of No Deal is that we crash out on 29th March 2019 (or even before if some of the more extreme elements get their way).
Realistically, I would say that if we get to the point of agreeing a transitional deal, we will get to a final deal, too.
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Secondly, one where we accept single market status, but only after a transition under which the aquis of the EA can be move d forward without UK input (again, the potential to be attacked by the other states including EFTA nations is quite dangerous).
Thirdly, one where UK territorial integrity is attacked both in the land and maritime arenas, so that means ECJ gets some status in NI, or CFP is retained with ECJ/Commission control.
Fourthly, one where the arbiter of future trade and treaty disputes is not entirely independent from the parties.
And that's just off the top of my head, any serious study of potential outcomes would find other real disincentives that might be on the table.
Not only does the ECJ have control over the financial sector now, but the ECJ will continue to have control over the financial sector for years and years to come.
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
For operational purposes, Brexit is wholly irrelevant to the UK's financial sector and they will happily submit themselves to ECJ oversight.
One issue with some vaccinations - and I don't know if the flu jab is one of these - is that they are only effective at controlling epidemics if a minimum proportion of the population is inoculated. While people have the absolute right to control what goes into their body, refusing to be vaccinated not only puts your life at risk, it increases the chance of other people being infected. Public figures who come out against vaccination on a dodgy balance of risks should be careful.
One issue with some vaccinations - and I don't know if the flu jab is one of these - is that they are only effective at controlling epidemics if a minimum proportion of the population is inoculated. While people have the absolute right to control what goes into their body, refusing to be vaccinated not only puts your life at risk, it increases the chance of other people being infected. Public figures who come out against vaccination on a dodgy balance of risks should be careful.
Herd immunity is the normal term for this.
Considering the vast majority of the population aren't even offered the flu vaccine though I don't think that applies here.
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.
Hardly just an SNP counter opinion. The Scottish Government oil price forecasts were below those of the UK Department of Energy and was it not a certain David Cameron in 2014 who forecast a £100 billion oil boom with the Union!
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
If there's a deadline next year then considering Brexit won't happen until the year after at the absolute earliest (and a transition could push that in practice further back) then of course they'll have to be conformed with. Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit.
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
I guess the DM gave a strong professional counter-opinion to the MMR vaccine also.
Repeatedly.
I guess the SNP gave a strong professional counter-opinion on oil price scenarios going into the Referendum also.
Repeatedly.
And the 'Playing cricket with a tennis racket' non sequitur of the day award goes to..
When's Dave's £200b oil & gas boom if you vote No going to turn up? I know Scotland is beating rUK on unemployment, youth unemployment, growth and trade, but that would be a nice bonus.
One issue with some vaccinations - and I don't know if the flu jab is one of these - is that they are only effective at controlling epidemics if a minimum proportion of the population is inoculated. While people have the absolute right to control what goes into their body, refusing to be vaccinated not only puts your life at risk, it increases the chance of other people being infected. Public figures who come out against vaccination on a dodgy balance of risks should be careful.
Vaccination give immunity to the individual and (ideally) herd immunity if enough people are vaccinated. IIRC you need about 70% coverage for herd immunity to be effective
Not only does the ECJ have control over the financial sector now, but the ECJ will continue to have control over the financial sector for years and years to come.
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
For operational purposes, Brexit is wholly irrelevant to the UK's financial sector and they will happily submit themselves to ECJ oversight.
Other than that, good post.
Mr Topping
As I understand it, EU control is more about the domestic market, ie selling financial services to end users (be they business or consumer products). What I'm more concerned with would be the international money market, venture capital etc, of which London is very much a centre. Would I be right to say that this is something where SM rules are not encroaching significantly?
If you think 3bn/year is a tiny meaningless amount - then take it up with Andrew Dilnot not me. I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.
Your figure of 18bn looks very suspect. Spending on adult social care by local authorities was 17bn in 2015/16. We can approximate 1/2 of that on the >65 year old range
So you are talking about roughly tripling expenditure. That doesn't seem right. It also sounds like the kind of proposal Corbyn would get heavily criticised for being unrealistic...
If Labour are proposing to cover cost of ‘end of life care', then to get an estimate if the cost, you take the number of people ending the lives in care homes times the typical cost of care fees.
I have already pointed out -- since Blair’s time -- most people fund their own end of life care in care homes. They only get a free place if they have assets less than 23 k.
However, to bias the die in your favour, let’s assume that only 2/3 of people are paying their own care fees.
2/3 * 30000 pa * 300000 = 4.5 billion, which exceeds the amount claimed by Labour for setting up a National Care Service. I haven’t even mentioned the other costs that would need to be covered.
As I understand it, the Dilnot proposal is to cover the cost of the NURSING component of the care bill !!!! That is not the same as the care bill !!!!
Finally, I strongly dislike statements like “I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.”
We’ve just seen (the thread header) the dangers of allowing other people to do your thinking for you. It turned out that the ONS, despite doing more thinking, were grossly wrong and many contributors on pb were closer to the mark.
People should be able to make order of magnitude estimates of the costs of politicians' proposals.
Perhaps then, we wouldn’t fall victim to so many politician’s lies or false promises ?
Mr. Palmer, but he has pinned himself to a position. He's against no deal, regardless of what 'deal' the EU offers. Starmer's position is to accept what the EU is willing to offer.
Given what No Deal involves, no sane person would support it. The difference between the Brexit negotiations and most others is that id they go wrong there is no reversion to the status quo: the UK not only reverts to a WTO tariffs relationship with the EU, but also sees itself on the outside of hundreds of international agreements covering everything from the transportation of nuclear material to the air travel. No Deal is not a credible position. And if your position is not credible, then it is not a negotiating strategy.
Ahem. I'm sane (I think!), and 'No Deal' would certainly be better than some scenarios that could realistically transpire. Having said that, much would depend on the competence of the government if there was no deal.
Oh dear ...
What would some of the terms of a deal that was worse than no deal be?
A deal that only came to fruition after several years, during which both sides have developed an animosity for each other, and whose clauses are more political than practical (i.e. made to please populations rather than actually work). A deal where the clauses are massively open to interpretation that will keep all sides in court for years, stifling trade and investment. A deal where one side, or both, decide that the deal needs renegotiating after a few months due to legal irregularities.
This might very well happen.
This whole situation is a mess. And despite what Mr Dancer says, it is mostly our fault.
I agree that sounds pretty bad. There will of course have to be some arbiter of whatever set of rules we come up with and I can see that if it turns into a he said-she said issue between the UK and the EU without such an arbiter agreed then that is a recipe for danger.
As for "clauses more political" - well that is the Pandora's Box that we opened. The whole shebang is political, and our leaving and the terms on which we leave, will be no different.
< What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
What is far worse than No Deal now? Being humiliated by the EU at the last minute, which is exactly what is going to happen if we carry on with these talks. You might not care, but it would be this far more than WTO which will damage the country, probably for decades. The reason FDI is slowing is because of UNCERTAINTY. If we declare that we going for WTO now, business will adapt. But if we carry on with charade, there will be at least 3 years more uncertainty as we get forced into a transition to nowhere and spend the whole time fighting yet more negotiations with the EU (and how could anyone handle that, everyone is sick of this already!).
The country is divided on the EU, always has been. We had a huge debate and voted, leave won. The only way to proceed is to face up to that and execute the will of the people, for better or worse and the quicker we do so, the quicker business and the public can adapt. It is not exactly as if the destination - eg a sovereign country outside the EU single market with its own customs and border control has never been tried before.
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs.
While giving a cast iron commitment to have no physical infrastructure on our only real land border. How is that supposed to work?
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
If there's a deadline next year then considering Brexit won't happen until the year after at the absolute earliest (and a transition could push that in practice further back) then of course they'll have to be conformed with. Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit.
Again, sorry, but you do not understand the terms under which the financial services in the UK operate. Whatever the hell the ECJ via the ECB decide will be the rules for the sector, we will follow. The current set of regulations will be overseen by the ECB and will last for years and years and we will follow them line for line for years and years.
"Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit." is a meaningless statement, I'm afraid.
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.
We chose that route ages ago
A failure of the Blair government, but we will correct it eventually.
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
+1 (almost!!!) Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more corrupt, more stupid and less experienced.
More dishonest than Johnson? I grant you that May doesn’t seem corrupt, just out of her depth.
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more. Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.
We chose that route ages ago
We were riding two horses, I think [whether the UK was fully part of the European financial market]. I can't see any Brexit scenario where the horses don't separate sufficiently for us to fall through the gap.
Is intersting that people think this is a government in chaos. As a child of seveties I remember continual strikes, power cuts, rubbish everywhere, morris marinas, and the UK as the sick man of the world. Look at the UK now. Having just spent the weekend in Weymouth I feel generally grateful that I live in the UK. Its a great place, and to my mind the Governemnt is operating very effectively. Obviously with the 24 hours news cycle looking for news where it does not exist its very hard to be a politician or to work in Givernment. Did the response of the Government to the Monarch collapse look like a Governmentt in chaos. In a very orderly and professional manner a plan was put in place to bring hundreds of thousand of people back to the UK. This has now been completed without a hitch. Hardly the actions of a Government in chaos.
Looks at dire state of politics. Holds head in hands. Sighs. Gets busy with something else.
I'm heading out to Canada next week to seal the deal on a house there, is one of my contingencies for when Brexit becomes a shit show and Corbyn as PM.
It looks very nice Mr Eagles. I am sure you will be very Brexit-safe there. What is you internet connection like?
As I understand it, EU control is more about the domestic market, ie selling financial services to end users (be they business or consumer products). What I'm more concerned with would be the international money market, venture capital etc, of which London is very much a centre. Would I be right to say that this is something where SM rules are not encroaching significantly?
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
+1 (almost!!!) Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more corrupt, more stupid and less experienced.
More dishonest than Johnson? I grant you that May doesn’t seem corrupt, just out of her depth.
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more. Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.
I can claim I can buy a Ferrari with the old pound left in my pocket and call it 'costed'. It woudl bej ust as meaningless.
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
+1 (almost!!!) Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more corrupt, more stupid and less experienced.
More dishonest than Johnson? I grant you that May doesn’t seem corrupt, just out of her depth.
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more. Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.
I think the thread began with YDoethur saying the costings were dishonest.
Is intersting that people think this is a government in chaos. As a child of seveties I remember continual strikes, power cuts, rubbish everywhere, morris marinas, and the UK as the sick man of the world. Look at the UK now. Having just spent the weekend in Weymouth I feel generally grateful that I live in the UK. Its a great place, and to my mind the Governemnt is operating very effectively. Obviously with the 24 hours news cycle looking for news where it does not exist its very hard to be a politician or to work in Givernment. Did the response of the Government to the Monarch collapse look like a Governmentt in chaos. In a very orderly and professional manner a plan was put in place to bring hundreds of thousand of people back to the UK. This has now been completed without a hitch. Hardly the actions of a Government in chaos.
That's ridiculous. The problems of Monarch have been known for some time and much of the rescuing was done within the travel industry by other operators taking the slots for the Monarch flights. I don't think the Government had a lot to do with it.
As an apologist for the current administration, what do you make of the attacks on Johnson one week and Hammond the next ? Yes, it doesn't mean much to most people getting on with their lives but it doesn't create a strong impression of a Government united and focused - rather a bunch of squabbling cats in a sack.
As to "operating very effectively", does the Government do that much these days ? Local authorities and other organisations do most of the heavy lifting - does Government build houses, feed and clothe and keep essential services running ? Only peripherally - it's at best an enabler, most people get on despite the Government rather than because of it.
It means the trains, capable of travelling at 148mph, will still have to travel at the speed of the current Intercity trains (125mph maximum) and run on diesel fuel for the last section of the journey from Maidenhead to Bristol.
The last section from Maidenhead to Bristol? That's one way of putting it!
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
Developed Nations spend vast amounts of capital on reducing trade friction.
We are the first to willingly inject friction into our existing trade to satisfy our xenophobic tendencies.
I think it unlikely other countries will follow suit
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more. Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.
I think the thread began with YDoethur saying the costings were dishonest.
I agree with YDoethur.
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
+1 (almost!!!) Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more corrupt, more stupid and less experienced.
More dishonest than Johnson? I grant you that May doesn’t seem corrupt, just out of her depth.
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more. Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.
I can claim I can buy a Ferrari with the old pound left in my pocket and call it 'costed'. It woudl bej ust as meaningless.
Then the IFS (and quite possibly even CCHQ at its most dysfunctional) would question the cost of Labour's free Ferrari promise.
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.
This is one of those quotes to record for posterity. Even the biggest calculations of costs to the City are a tiny fraction of the gap between London and Frankfurt. Most financial exports aren't even into the EU, so why would it matter? The hit is likely to be some small operations to sell into the EU will be distributed between Frankfurt, Dublin and Luxembourg so there won't even be an agglomeration elsewhere.
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs.
While giving a cast iron commitment to have no physical infrastructure on our only real land border. How is that supposed to work?
There will have to be border controls between NI and ROI. However, once again this has all been done before. The EEA members are not in the Customs Union. The border between Norway and Sweden has customs controls but no physical barriers, as far as the understand it. Goods importers are required to use one of a few designated crossings (as opposed to individuals) and they have to report to customs stations to clear their goods.
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
Developed Nations spend vast amounts of capital on reducing trade friction.
We are the first to willingly inject friction into our existing trade to satisfy our xenophobic tendencies.
I think it unlikely other countries will follow suit
Developed nations do not spend much if any capital on trade negotiations. The EU barely has trade agreements with any major economies. As I keep asking, if free trade agreements are so unbelievably valuable and WTO so utter crap, why has the EU been perfectly content to trade on WTO rules most of its major trade partners for the last 20 years?
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
If there's a deadline next year then considering Brexit won't happen until the year after at the absolute earliest (and a transition could push that in practice further back) then of course they'll have to be conformed with. Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit.
Again, sorry, but you do not understand the terms under which the financial services in the UK operate. Whatever the hell the ECJ via the ECB decide will be the rules for the sector, we will follow. The current set of regulations will be overseen by the ECB and will last for years and years and we will follow them line for line for years and years.
"Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit." is a meaningless statement, I'm afraid.
I can't see any reason why the UK will need to follow ECB rules for the UK financial sector after Brexit. Like all trade, if you want to trade in a foreign country you follow their rules, if you trade in your own country you follow your own rules. Once again, this is how it works all across the World. New York and Tokyo don't follow ECB rules.
Developed nations do not spend much if any capital on trade negotiations.
Canada spent 7 years
You said capital, not time. And it is not exactly exhausting the resources of a nation such as Canada to have 50 trade negotiators playing around with this, is it?
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.
This is one of those quotes to record for posterity. Even the biggest calculations of costs to the City are a tiny fraction of the gap between London and Frankfurt. Most financial exports aren't even into the EU, so why would it matter? The hit is likely to be some small operations to sell into the EU will be distributed between Frankfurt, Dublin and Luxembourg so there won't even be an agglomeration elsewhere.
I think on balance @FF43s comments were about right. London isn't going to fall into a hole, but increasingly it will be considered with other capitals when financial services institutions consider their options.
Here are the scores on the doors so far; far more than you suggest, far from apocalyptic:
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
Developed Nations spend vast amounts of capital on reducing trade friction.
We are the first to willingly inject friction into our existing trade to satisfy our xenophobic tendencies.
I think it unlikely other countries will follow suit
Developed nations do not spend much if any capital on trade negotiations. The EU barely has trade agreements with any major economies. As I keep asking, if free trade agreements are so unbelievably valuable and WTO so utter crap, why has the EU been perfectly content to trade on WTO rules most of its major trade partners for the last 20 years?
The EU has huge numbers of trade Deals with 3rd parties. What it doesn't have is Free Trade Deals which remove all tariffs into the majority of each others economies.
Forget tariffs, concentrate on the real costs : Non Tariff Barriers.
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto. To stretch your analogy, you have dreamt that Labour promised a Ferrari and are now complaining they've only budgeted for a Ford Focus RS.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
I have just checked the manifesto, and the 3 billion pound figure includes " free end of life care." See page 72 of the Manifesto, where it is clear that the 3 billion also covers a bunch of other things as well.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.
< What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
What is far worse than No Deal now? Being humiliated by the EU at the last minute, which is exactly what is going to happen if we carry on with these talks. You might not care, but it would be this far more than WTO which will damage the country, probably for decades. The reason FDI is slowing is because of UNCERTAINTY. If we declare that we going for WTO now, business will adapt. But if we carry on with charade, there will be at least 3 years more uncertainty as we get forced into a transition to nowhere and spend the whole time fighting yet more negotiations with the EU (and how could anyone handle that, everyone is sick of this already!).
The country is divided on the EU, always has been. We had a huge debate and voted, leave won. The only way to proceed is to face up to that and execute the will of the people, for better or worse and the quicker we do so, the quicker business and the public can adapt. It is not exactly as if the destination - eg a sovereign country outside the EU single market with its own customs and border control has never been tried before.
We have an economy predicated on being part of a single market and we are now seeking to leave that single market, as well as the customs union that runs alongside it. No country on earth has done that before. I agree, businesses will adapt if we declare we are moving to WTO. They will leave - in part or in whole - and they will reduce their investments in the UK, which will become a market of 65 million people instead of being a seamless part of one that comprises 450 million.
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.
We chose that route ages ago
We were riding two horses, I think [whether the UK was fully part of the European financial market]. I can't see any Brexit scenario where the horses don't separate sufficiently for us to fall through the gap.
that choice was always going to be forced on us you cant ride 2 horses for ever
< What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
What is far worse than No Deal now? Being humiliated by the EU at the last minute, which is exactly what is going to happen if we carry on with these talks. You might not care, but it would be this far more than WTO which will damage the country, probably for decades. The reason FDI is slowing is because of UNCERTAINTY. If we declare that we going for WTO now, business will adapt. But if we carry on with charade, there will be at least 3 years more uncertainty as we get forced into a transition to nowhere and spend the whole time fighting yet more negotiations with the EU (and how could anyone handle that, everyone is sick of this already!).
The country is divided on the EU, always has been. We had a huge debate and voted, leave won. The only way to proceed is to face up to that and execute the will of the people, for better or worse and the quicker we do so, the quicker business and the public can adapt. It is not exactly as if the destination - eg a sovereign country outside the EU single market with its own customs and border control has never been tried before.
We have an economy predicated on being part of a single market and we are now seeking to leave that single market, as well as the customs union that runs alongside it. No country on earth has done that before. I agree, businesses will adapt if we declare we are moving to WTO. They will leave - in part or in whole - and they will reduce their investments in the UK, which will become a market of 65 million people instead of being a seamless part of one that comprises 450 million.
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
If there's a deadline next year then considering Brexit won't happen until the year after at the absolute earliest (and a transition could push that in practice further back) then of course they'll have to be conformed with. Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit.
Again, sorry, but you do not understand the terms under which the financial services in the UK operate. Whatever the hell the ECJ via the ECB decide will be the rules for the sector, we will follow. The current set of regulations will be overseen by the ECB and will last for years and years and we will follow them line for line for years and years.
"Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit." is a meaningless statement, I'm afraid.
I can't see any reason why the UK will need to follow ECB rules for the UK financial sector after Brexit. Like all trade, if you want to trade in a foreign country you follow their rules, if you trade in your own country you follow your own rules. Once again, this is how it works all across the World. New York and Tokyo don't follow ECB rules.
They will follow ECB rules because the financial services sector is intertwined with Europe, and the rest of the world, in such a way that to disentangle it would be impossible.
JP Morgan in New York doesn't follow ECB rules, but if it wants to trade european assets, then it must use an EU-regulated entity to do so. So New York sort of does follow ECB rules.
If you are saying your pension fund should be restricted to buying listed and non-listed assets of UK companies issued in the UK then I suppose, as they say, it's a view.
Poor Max. But with Katie as his mother I guess flu is the least of his problems
Australia had its worst flu season on record in the winter of 2017. Most recorded cases are in the children and elderly, but that may be reporting bias.
< What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
What is far worse than No Deal now? Being humiliated by the EU at the last minute, which is exactly what is going to happen if we carry on with these talks. You might not care, but it would be this far more than WTO which will damage the country, probably for decades. The reason FDI is slowing is because of UNCERTAINTY. If we declare that we going for WTO now, business will adapt. But if we carry on with charade, there will be at least 3 years more uncertainty as we get forced into a transition to nowhere and spend the whole time fighting yet more negotiations with the EU (and how could anyone handle that, everyone is sick of this already!).
The country is divided on the EU, always has been. We had a huge debate and voted, leave won. The only way to proceed is to face up to that and execute the will of the people, for better or worse and the quicker we do so, the quicker business and the public can adapt. It is not exactly as if the destination - eg a sovereign country outside the EU single market with its own customs and border control has never been tried before.
We have an economy predicated on being part of a single market and we are now seeking to leave that single market, as well as the customs union that runs alongside it. No country on earth has done that before. I agree, businesses will adapt if we declare we are moving to WTO. They will leave - in part or in whole - and they will reduce their investments in the UK, which will become a market of 65 million people instead of being a seamless part of one that comprises 450 million.
Comments
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919702850996985859
The problem with numbers like FDI is that people don't feel them. Unemployment and inflation, on the other hand, are easier to grasp.
If Project Fear becomes Project Reality, then the Tory Leavers in government are going to be in a very awkward place.
This might very well happen.
This whole situation is a mess. And despite what Mr Dancer says, it is mostly our fault.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Eagles, isn't the UK your country?
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/919633283461337089
Secondly, one where we accept single market status, but only after a transition under which the aquis of the EA can be move d forward without UK input (again, the potential to be attacked by the other states including EFTA nations is quite dangerous).
Thirdly, one where UK territorial integrity is attacked both in the land and maritime arenas, so that means ECJ gets some status in NI, or CFP is retained with ECJ/Commission control.
Fourthly, one where the arbiter of future trade and treaty disputes is not entirely independent from the parties.
And that's just off the top of my head, any serious study of potential outcomes would find other real disincentives that might be on the table.
but spending £50 million boosting ONS is chicken shit given the need for accurate data to steer the place in the right direction
Catbert never had any problems finding money when it was one of his pet projects
How many weeks does it take for £350m to equal £490bn? About 26 years or so....
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Her points were perfectly reasonable and the editing & presentation of the counter case was good.
Credit where credit is due.
I’m generally pro vaccine - but aiui, the case for flu vaccines for 8yo kids is pretty marginal. Meningitis, mmr etc is a different calculation and imo they should basically be compulsory. I’m strongly pro-hpv for boys, too.
Repeatedly.
I know it is an unfashionable view these days, but I trust the experts.
Your figure of 18bn looks very suspect.
Spending on adult social care by local authorities was 17bn in 2015/16.
We can approximate 1/2 of that on the >65 year old range
So you are talking about roughly tripling expenditure. That doesn't seem right.
It also sounds like the kind of proposal Corbyn would get heavily criticised for being unrealistic...
(http://content.digital.nhs.uk/article/5261/Spending-on-adult-social-care-statistics-published)
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/adult-social-care-spending
Repeatedly.
“What happens to the gilt market and sterling when the ECB steps back?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/15/britains-missing-billions-revised-figures-reveal-uk-490bn-poorer/
Despite all the Tory woes, Labour can only scrape together a tiny lead, smaller than the ones enjoyed by Kinnock and Miliband between elections. It continues to hero worship a hard left economically illiterate leader who is scared to go on the Today programme.
Those predicting a Corbyn government on the back of Tory woes might end up looking as foolish in the end as those forecasting a Tory landslide in June.
£3bn could be found easily, for example 2.5p on VAT is about £12bn. But Labours planning spending runs into the 10s of billions and likely more.
The economy is more about confidence rather than money.
Realistically, I would say that if we get to the point of agreeing a transitional deal, we will get to a final deal, too.
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
For operational purposes, Brexit is wholly irrelevant to the UK's financial sector and they will happily submit themselves to ECJ oversight.
Other than that, good post.
Considering the vast majority of the population aren't even offered the flu vaccine though I don't think that applies here.
Hardly just an SNP counter opinion. The Scottish Government oil price forecasts were below those of the UK Department of Energy and was it not a certain David Cameron in 2014 who forecast a £100 billion oil boom with the Union!
When's Dave's £200b oil & gas boom if you vote No going to turn up? I know Scotland is beating rUK on unemployment, youth unemployment, growth and trade, but that would be a nice bonus.
For measles you need 90% or higher coverage.
Either you are not involved in the financial sector or you have missed the raft of EU regulations that the entire City is hastening to conform with ahead of next year's deadline.
For operational purposes, Brexit is wholly irrelevant to the UK's financial sector and they will happily submit themselves to ECJ oversight.
Other than that, good post.
Mr Topping
As I understand it, EU control is more about the domestic market, ie selling financial services to end users (be they business or consumer products). What I'm more concerned with would be the international money market, venture capital etc, of which London is very much a centre. Would I be right to say that this is something where SM rules are not encroaching significantly?
I have already pointed out -- since Blair’s time -- most people fund their own end of life care in care homes. They only get a free place if they have assets less than 23 k.
However, to bias the die in your favour, let’s assume that only 2/3 of people are paying their own care fees.
2/3 * 30000 pa * 300000 = 4.5 billion, which exceeds the amount claimed by Labour for setting up a National Care Service. I haven’t even mentioned the other costs that would need to be covered.
As I understand it, the Dilnot proposal is to cover the cost of the NURSING component of the care bill !!!! That is not the same as the care bill !!!!
Finally, I strongly dislike statements like “I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.”
We’ve just seen (the thread header) the dangers of allowing other people to do your thinking for you. It turned out that the ONS, despite doing more thinking, were grossly wrong and many contributors on pb were closer to the mark.
People should be able to make order of magnitude estimates of the costs of politicians' proposals.
Perhaps then, we wouldn’t fall victim to so many politician’s lies or false promises ?
As for "clauses more political" - well that is the Pandora's Box that we opened. The whole shebang is political, and our leaving and the terms on which we leave, will be no different.
What is far worse than No Deal now? Being humiliated by the EU at the last minute, which is exactly what is going to happen if we carry on with these talks. You might not care, but it would be this far more than WTO which will damage the country, probably for decades. The reason FDI is slowing is because of UNCERTAINTY. If we declare that we going for WTO now, business will adapt. But if we carry on with charade, there will be at least 3 years more uncertainty as we get forced into a transition to nowhere and spend the whole time fighting yet more negotiations with the EU (and how could anyone handle that, everyone is sick of this already!).
The country is divided on the EU, always has been. We had a huge debate and voted, leave won. The only way to proceed is to face up to that and execute the will of the people, for better or worse and the quicker we do so, the quicker business and the public can adapt. It is not exactly as if the destination - eg a sovereign country outside the EU single market with its own customs and border control has never been tried before.
"Doesn't mean we should encourage that post-Brexit." is a meaningless statement, I'm afraid.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.
The EU pretty much covers all financial services that are operated cross-border or might be. Which is pretty much everything.
I agree with YDoethur.
As an apologist for the current administration, what do you make of the attacks on Johnson one week and Hammond the next ? Yes, it doesn't mean much to most people getting on with their lives but it doesn't create a strong impression of a Government united and focused - rather a bunch of squabbling cats in a sack.
As to "operating very effectively", does the Government do that much these days ? Local authorities and other organisations do most of the heavy lifting - does Government build houses, feed and clothe and keep essential services running ? Only peripherally - it's at best an enabler, most people get on despite the Government rather than because of it.
It means the trains, capable of travelling at 148mph, will still have to travel at the speed of the current Intercity trains (125mph maximum) and run on diesel fuel for the last section of the journey from Maidenhead to Bristol.
The last section from Maidenhead to Bristol? That's one way of putting it!
We are the first to willingly inject friction into our existing trade to satisfy our xenophobic tendencies.
I think it unlikely other countries will follow suit
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
A document with numbers in is "has costs" but is not "costed" unless those numbers add up.
Labour's manifesto was not costed.
Here are the scores on the doors so far; far more than you suggest, far from apocalyptic:
https://thetradenews.com/Sell-side/The-Brexit-exodus-story-so-far/
Forget tariffs, concentrate on the real costs : Non Tariff Barriers.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/wahl-in-niedersachsen/cdu-pleite-in-niedersachsen-ist-auch-daempfer-fuer-angela-merkel-15247848.html
https://order-order.com/2017/10/16/young-labour-leave-nato-abolish-the-city-and-scrap-two-state-solution/
JP Morgan in New York doesn't follow ECB rules, but if it wants to trade european assets, then it must use an EU-regulated entity to do so. So New York sort of does follow ECB rules.
If you are saying your pension fund should be restricted to buying listed and non-listed assets of UK companies issued in the UK then I suppose, as they say, it's a view.
It is in your interests for you not to vaccinate your child, but for everyone else to vaccinate theirs.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/the-biggest-mistakes-australians-are-making-in-the-influenza-outbreak/news-story/04f663dbe5dde7a7755f85bf8839d41d