If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.
But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.
The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.
Extension of A50 period is the most obvious way of avoiding car crash Brexit without cancelling Brexit.
May is the ultimate Brexit saboteur. Fixing the exit date is an obvious ruse to make cancellation the only option.
I think she is trying to be more Catholic than the Pope hence the law on the date and Brexit means Brexit vacuity and generally boxing herself and, more importantly, the country into a corner from which the only options are a climbdown or a car crash.
Any sensible politician would have realised that unpicking a relationship of over 40 years duration would take time and should be done slowly and gradually and methodically and with some thought and care.
Instead we’ve had grandstanding and threats and bluff and bluster and time wasted on pointless fights.
I was glad that the Tories did not get a huge majority in June because they become unbearably arrogant when they do have such majorities. Now I’m beginning to wish that they would just crawl away into some dark corner never to be heard of again.
It is extraordinary just how an ostensibly patriotic party has lost sight of what is in the economic interests of the country and the wellbeing of its people.
There's nothing patriotic about acquiescing in the UK's slow absorption into federalist political structures.
The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.
No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.
Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,
hmmm.. that's why you spoiled your ballot. they are awful, pure and simple.. Lets look at it.. Cable old man.. party only has 8 seats.. The less said about Corbyn the better.. and Momentum that runs Labour.. UKIP joke party.. Who do you suggest might run the country..
I spoiled the ballot paper because no party deserved my vote. They were all differently bad. Labour were not a worse option than the Conservatives, just as appendicitis is not a worse option than kidney stones.
As I said a rejection of the electorate, it was the electorate who voted Leave and forced Cameron to be replaced by May and the electorate who kept Corbyn as Labour leader by giving him 40% of the vote.
Had the election been Cameron v Yvette Cooper for instance you probably would have voted.
I must say the first paragraph in particular I find to be one of the finest bits of writing from Mr herdson yet. And there is no shortage of contenders on that score.
Leave voters think Brexit doesn't change anything (ironically), so they don't see any need to make compromises with the EU. As long as Theresa May's government serves that constituency she won't make the compromises for them or try to educate them about the consequences of not doing so.
The question is what happens when reality can no longer be denied. I doubt many Leavers will accept responsibility for their vote choice, so it will always make compromise very difficult.
I don't get the impression most Conservative MPs are enthusiastic about Brexit. I think they secretly wish it would just go away.
I should have added, compromise will have to happen eventually, if you take the long view. As a powerful multilateral organisation representing 27 countries, the EU is never going to compromise with us, so we will have to compromise with it. And we will. But it might take ten years of argument, grief and pain to get to that point. Truly a wasted decade.
There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.
Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.
London, the South East and East.
In the North East and Northern Ireland house prices have actually fallen compared to ten years ago.
I sold property in the North East in 2010 - for most of the time after the sale the absolute value fell - its since recovered and is now worth a bit more than the sale price - though in real terms its still worth less.....
Yes housing is not really an issue in the North East, it is much more affordable but also much less of an asset.
Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.
Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.
Conservative DNA has plainly changed. No one can claim that Brexit was unpopular with Conservative voters in general. They are no longer unideological people who simply react to the ideological Labour Party.
That's a very good summary of how Conservative Governments operated for most of the 20th Century.
Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says
on anything.
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market."...
Yes it does make me chuckle to see how wrong he has been on that.
It's frightening more than amusing to see how Leavers have changed their entire rationale. The visceral hatred of the EU is papered over with fake blather. There is no excuse, no matter how vile or destructive, that they won't use to satisfy an emotional demand.
Even the risks of a so called 'Car Crash Brexit' can be exaggerated.
'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent. Set against our new commercial opportunities overseas, and our deregulatory opportunities at home, that doesn’t seem so bad.' https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html
Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says on economics.
As a case in point - the estimates he is referring to only apply to UK exports of goods, and only apply to the reduction from tariffs.
Hannan really is an utter charlatan - as he constantly makes false statements an A Level economics student can spot, in fact we did - as he came to give a talk to my A Level economics class many years ago proselytising about Iceland. Either he's not very clever and has won plaudits for his style because he throws in the odd Gibbon quote into deliberately contrarian, but ultimately factually empty essays, or he is and he deliberately says incredibly stupid and wrong things because they helps his argument and he knows few people, especially The Telegraph Blimps he's trying to tickle, will bother to take him up on it.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
Thing is, it's not 'the internal loons' that Brexit is being pursued for. If that was the only place the pressure was coming from, the leadership would ignore them, as Tory leaderships have done pretty much since 1957. What makes it almost impossible to back down from is the 17.4m Leave votes in the referendum.
Now, if Brexit really does look that bad, it may be that ducking out in some way becomes an option - but don't underestimate the political and social consequences of any party and any government that does so. As with the Corn Laws, even if it is the right decision, there's a pretty good chance that it won't solve the immediate problem anyway.
I don't think Brexit will be end up being as significant as either Remainers or Leavers think.
What it will do is put an end to the UK's participation in the EU's federalist political project.
Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says
on anything.
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market."...
Yes it does make me chuckle to see how wrong he has been on that.
It's frightening more than amusing to see how Leavers have changed their entire rationale. The visceral hatred of the EU is papered over with fake blather. There is no excuse, no matter how vile or destructive, that they won't use to satisfy an emotional demand.
I think you have something here. Leicester has had a lot of regeneration too over the last 25 years that I have lived here. The West End (around Narborough Rd suposedly the most diverse street in the country) is an interesting mix of ethno-hipsters and students. The Highcross development has kept shoppers in the city centre, and the cultural quarter around the Curve theatre has regenerated an area that was derelict mills when I moved here. There is still a lot of deprivation around, but there is a buzz and cultural identity to the place. Leicester voted narrowly for Remain.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
Interesting long read on 'What the UK is good for':
the UK is good for three things: the greater external security of liberal democracy, a depth of multinational solidarity of which the European Union can still only dream, and the upholding of a humane international order. And all of that will remain true, whether or not Brexit comes to pass.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out. It's an extreme example of something I think is an underrated factor in the leave vote - namely that cities that were the subject of largely successful regeneration projects - Manchester and Newcastle, voted in. The split one is Leeds, which is notorious for its very affluent city centre and comparatively deprived outskirts (in fact, it took EU money to address this - but has struggled. It voted almost exactly 50-50. Then you have Sunderland, which voted out despite its position next to Newcastle and the fact they share a metro system. Why? Well you can perhaps point to the fact that Sunderland's regeneration efforts stalled in the 2000s. Sheffield, which voted leave, is a case study in how to botch regeneration projects - as Meadowhall has harmed the city centre and you had things like the ill-fated Pop Museum. Obviously, towns outside the home counties commuter belt have had it even harder - and were even liklier to go leave.
You can overstate this, the margins are slim (even big 'remain' or 'leave' votes are 60-40). But It think it may have made a big difference between voters who were generally unbothered but unenthusiastic about the EU feeling a sense of decline and opting to leave and feeling more optimistic and opting to stay in those areas - and ultimately, those voters, not the cartoon character racists or ludicrous Hannanites, are the ones who matter.
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.
Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.
That is a direct consequence of Osborne’s tax policies and he was right to discourage it. The problem is that lenders will require much bigger deposits when the market is stable than when it is rising. Whilst affordability is superficially improving a combination of static wages, more insecure employment and the demand for higher deposits is excluding too many people from the market.
My daughter is house hunting at the moment. She is being offered a fairly high multiple of her salary but needs to produce a 25% deposit. When I bought my first house my deposit was less than 10%.
You can get them but you often pay a higher interest rate.
I recommend using a mortgage broker. I used Which?, who charged £499 fee but were very good and I more than saved that money in the deal.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
Thing is, it's not 'the internal loons' that Brexit is being pursued for. If that was the only place the pressure was coming from, the leadership would ignore them, as Tory leaderships have done pretty much since 1957. What makes it almost impossible to back down from is the 17.4m Leave votes in the referendum.
Now, if Brexit really does look that bad, it may be that ducking out in some way becomes an option - but don't underestimate the political and social consequences of any party and any government that does so. As with the Corn Laws, even if it is the right decision, there's a pretty good chance that it won't solve the immediate problem anyway.
People voted to leave the EU. It's a pretty specific question about a very specific task. The loons have driven the Tories to interpret this in the most extreme way. The loons have also driven the Tories to disregard all the expert evidence and factual analysis from their supporters and patrons.
Leaving the EU does not have to mean hurling ourselves off the cliff. Some leave voters may have objected to a sane Brexit, saying we had to be out of the EEA and CU as well. At which point a decent politician would ask them where those things were on the ballot paper - then we could have been in the realm of leavers wanting a second referendum on those other things.
I am not asking the government to back down from Brexit - I voted for it remember. I am asking them to back down from the lunacy of giving us less trading rights than Turkey. Leave the EU was half the question, the other half was "and do x". The Tories can't agree on x, and that is why we are this badly screwed.
Seems a solid view. I'm not intrinsically opposed to backing down from the whole business -the decision made was a very tough one after all - but it's not as easy as idiots insultingly pretend, however we do appear to have been backed into a series of extreme positions derived from seemingly not being able to agree anything else
Even the risks of a so called 'Car Crash Brexit' can be exaggerated.
'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent. Set against our new commercial opportunities overseas, and our deregulatory opportunities at home, that doesn’t seem so bad.' https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html
Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says on economics.
As a case in point - the estimates he is referring to only apply to UK exports of goods, and only apply to the reduction from tariffs.
Hannan really is an utter charlatan - as he constantly makes false statements an A Level economics student can spot, in fact we did - as he came to give a talk to my A Level economics class many years ago proselytising about Iceland. Either he's not very clever and has won plaudits for his style because he throws in the odd Gibbon quote into deliberately contrarian, but ultimately factually empty essays, or he is and he deliberately says incredibly stupid and wrong things because they helps his argument and he knows few people, especially The Telegraph Blimps he's trying to tickle, will bother to take him up on it.
In some ways it’s inspiring the impact a small, committed group of people like Hannan have managed to have on our democracy.
Obviously he didn’t just convince the Telegraph gang because Leave won the referendum with 17m votes. He went out and convinced people - just look at the fact that he went and spoke to your a level students.
Ultimately though he and his gang have talked us into a big mistake.
But if we’re being honest - Remainers like me lacked the passion his side showed. I should have been out there campaigning or at least giving money or something. I honestly didn’t think that stuff made much difference and I see now that I was wrong.
Conservative DNA has plainly changed. No one can claim that Brexit was unpopular with Conservative voters in general. They are no longer unideological people who simply react to the ideological Labour Party.
That's a very good summary of how Conservative Governments operated for most of the 20th Century.
Except the change happened some time ago. No one would suggest that Margaret Thatcher's governments were not ideological. They swallowed monetarism hook, line and sinker. Her belief in a property owning democracy was ideological and behind much of the privatisation policy. So the Tories have been ideological for 40 years now with the odd break of pragmatism.
My instinct is to look at what works but it is hard to deny that such a pragmatic approach frequently results in governments at the mercy of the fluctuating weather rather than making it. Neither extreme of ideologue or pragmatist really seems to work. An ideal politician has a base set of principles or beliefs about what sort of country they want but is open to the evidence of what works in practice and what does not. They are thin on the ground.
There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.
Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.
My first house went from £190k in Dec 2009 to a sale agreed at £280k in Feb 2017, and that's in the south-east.
The sale fell through, so we switched to a let-to-buy instead, but that feels like that's slightly ahead of real wage rises to me.
Is that the Erdogan from the Turkey which was all lined up to join the EU at the time of the EUref?
I feel better about the result, all of a sudden.
They were not all lined up to join, they have ostensibly been trying to join for decades but progress has seemingly not been great and as a layman looks to have gone backwards, with turkey not even really wanting to anymore, their imminent joining was severely overplayed in the referendum, it was one of the shader arguments used.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out. It's an extreme example of something I think is an underrated factor in the leave vote - namely that cities that were the subject of largely successful regeneration projects - Manchester and Newcastle, voted in. The split one is Leeds, which is notorious for its very affluent city centre and comparatively deprived outskirts (in fact, it took EU money to address this - but has struggled. It voted almost exactly 50-50. Then you have Sunderland, which voted out despite its position next to Newcastle and the fact they share a metro system. Why? Well you can perhaps point to the fact that Sunderland's regeneration efforts stalled in the 2000s. Sheffield, which voted leave, is a case study in how to botch regeneration projects - as Meadowhall has harmed the city centre and you had things like the ill-fated Pop Museum. Obviously, towns outside the home counties commuter belt have had it even harder - and were even liklier to go leave.
You can overstate this, the margins are slim (even big 'remain' or 'leave' votes are 60-40). But It think it may have made a big difference between voters who were generally unbothered but unenthusiastic about the EU feeling a sense of decline and opting to leave and feeling more optimistic and opting to stay in those areas - and ultimately, those voters, not the cartoon character racists or ludicrous Hannanites, are the ones who matter.
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
When you lance a boil, you release a lot of noxious pus.
Lancing is only curative if well drained. If you let the pus infect the rest of the body the problem spreads.
The divide over Brexit persists with few changing their minds. It is fundamentally a divide over values, perhaps oversimplified as natavists vs internationalists.
One reason that Brexit is so problematic is that the form of Brexit follows the same division. Should we be fortress Britain pulling up the drawbridge, or international Britain allowing free movement of goods, services, ideas and people?
There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.
Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.
London, the South East and East.
In the North East and Northern Ireland house prices have actually fallen compared to ten years ago.
I sold property in the North East in 2010 - for most of the time after the sale the absolute value fell - its since recovered and is now worth a bit more than the sale price - though in real terms its still worth less.....
When my mother died in 2011 I told my sister to name her price for my half of the house and i agreed without debate. I'm still ahead on the deal even if I'd put the money under the bed!
Conservative DNA has plainly changed. No one can claim that Brexit was unpopular with Conservative voters in general. They are no longer unideological people who simply react to the ideological Labour Party.
That's a very good summary of how Conservative Governments operated for most of the 20th Century.
Except the change happened some time ago. No one would suggest that Margaret Thatcher's governments were not ideological. They swallowed monetarism hook, line and sinker. Her belief in a property owning democracy was ideological and behind much of the privatisation policy. So the Tories have been ideological for 40 years now with the odd break of pragmatism.
My instinct is to look at what works but it is hard to deny that such a pragmatic approach frequently results in governments at the mercy of the fluctuating weather rather than making it. Neither extreme of ideologue or pragmatist really seems to work. An ideal politician has a base set of principles or beliefs about what sort of country they want but is open to the evidence of what works in practice and what does not. They are thin on the ground.
Monetarism was effectively abandoned by the mid-80s. Then it was the poll tax, that was abandoned too. So was the ERM.
I wouldn't argue property owning democracy was ideological. Successive Conservative Governments have been pursuing that since the advent of mass democracy following WW1.
Following the 1990s, I think Major and Cameron were both in the mould Sean described.
Even the risks of a so called 'Car Crash Brexit' can be exaggerated.
'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent. Set against our new commercial opportunities overseas, and our deregulatory opportunities at home, that doesn’t seem so bad.' https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html
Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says on economics.
As a case in point - the estimates he is referring to only apply to UK exports of goods, and only apply to the reduction from tariffs.
Hannan really is an utter charlatan - as he constantly makes false statements an A Level economics student can spot, in fact we did - as he came to give a talk to my A Level economics class many years ago proselytising about Iceland. Either he's not very clever and has won plaudits for his style because he throws in the odd Gibbon quote into deliberately contrarian, but ultimately factually empty essays, or he is and he deliberately says incredibly stupid and wrong things because they helps his argument and he knows few people, especially The Telegraph Blimps he's trying to tickle, will bother to take him up on it.
I can't tell if Hannan is just hugely stupid or if he's delibertly mendacious.
When the result of the referendum on membership in the EU was announced in the UK, many commentators immediately announced that it had been delivered by the ‘left-behind’ white working class. The equivalent constituency in the US was subsequently argued to have secured Trump the presidency. Yet in both places it has been demonstrated that the white working class vote was less significant than that of the white middle class.
So the question needs to be asked: why is the white working class being held responsible for decisions taken by the white middle classes?
That argument seems to be mainly one that working class ethnic minorities did not vote Leave or for Trump. That is true but it does not mean the white working class did not.
In the US Trump won white no college graduates 67% to 28%, compared to white graduates who he won 49% to 45%. Non-white non college graduates went for Hillary 75% to 20% and non white graduates by 71% to 23%. On income the argument that it was the lower middle class which won it for Trump has more ground with Hillary winning those earning under $30k by 53% to 41% and those on $30 to 50k by 51% to 42%. Trump won those on $50k to $100k by 50% to 46%, those on $100k to $200k by 48% to 47%, those on $200k to 250k by 49% to 48% and those on more than $250k by 48% to 46% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016
In the EU referendum BME voters voted Remain by 69% to 31% while white voters voted Leave by 54% to 46%. Upper middle class ABs voted Remain 59% to 41%, lower middle class C1s voted Remain by 52% to 48%, skilled working class C2s voted Leave by 62% to 38% and unskilled working class and unemployed DEs voted Leave by 64% to 36%. So clearly it was the white working class which won it for Leave in the UK. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
I would say the 40% of ABs who voted Leave was highly significant top given the high turnout amongst this group.
THE scene: a deserted TV studio. Two empty leather chairs wait invitingly on a cold concrete set. Enter stage left a portly figure in a brown three-piece suit. His lilac face is buttery with make-up, red-rimmed eyes smarting under the lights. It looks as if someone has been using Mr Toad to test cosmetics. He waves his hammy mitts aloft and looms into the lens with a familiar, half-crazed chuckle: “Hello, and welcome to the Alex Salmond Show!”
What will the public think now of the man who might have been PM of an independent Scotland, of the causes he espoused, and of the party he fashioned, now that he is in bed with an industrial lie machine?
What will they think of the White Paper he promoted, and of the deputy who promoted it with him? What will they think the next time they are offered a vote on the issue?
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
When you lance a boil, you release a lot of noxious pus.
Lancing is only curative if well drained. If you let the pus infect the rest of the body the problem spreads.
The divide over Brexit persists with few changing their minds. It is fundamentally a divide over values, perhaps oversimplified as natavists vs internationalists.
One reason that Brexit is so problematic is that the form of Brexit follows the same division. Should we be fortress Britain pulling up the drawbridge, or international Britain allowing free movement of goods, services, ideas and people?
If it is the former, then count me out.
For me, I want a liberal democratic and independent Britain with a legislative and democratic framework that commands popular consent.
Free movement of people is very different to goods, services, ideas and capital, for what should be obvious reasons.
Even the risks of a so called 'Car Crash Brexit' can be exaggerated.
'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent. Set against our new commercial opportunities overseas, and our deregulatory opportunities at home, that doesn’t seem so bad.' https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html
Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says on economics.
As a case in point - the estimates he is referring to only apply to UK exports of goods, and only apply to the reduction from tariffs.
Hannan really is an utter charlatan - as he constantly makes false statements an A Level economics student can spot, in fact we did - as he came to give a talk to my A Level economics class many years ago proselytising about Iceland. Either he's not very clever and has won plaudits for his style because he throws in the odd Gibbon quote into deliberately contrarian, but ultimately factually empty essays, or he is and he deliberately says incredibly stupid and wrong things because they helps his argument and he knows few people, especially The Telegraph Blimps he's trying to tickle, will bother to take him up on it.
I can't tell if Hannan is just hugely stupid or if he's delibertly mendacious.
One of Theresa May's better judgements was to squelch his Westminster ambitions.
There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.
Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.
My first house went from £190k in Dec 2009 to a sale agreed at £280k in Feb 2017, and that's in the south-east.
The sale fell through, so we switched to a let-to-buy instead, but that feels like that's slightly ahead of real wage rises to me.
Even the risks of a so called 'Car Crash Brexit' can be exaggerated.
'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent. Set against our new commercial opportunities overseas, and our deregulatory opportunities at home, that doesn’t seem so bad.' https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html
Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says on economics.
As a case in point - the estimates he is referring to only apply to UK exports of goods, and only apply to the reduction from tariffs.
Hannan really is an utter charlatan - as he constantly makes false statements an A Level economics student can spot, in fact we did - as he came to give a talk to my A Level economics class many years ago proselytising about Iceland. Either he's not very clever and has won plaudits for his style because he throws in the odd Gibbon quote into deliberately contrarian, but ultimately factually empty essays, or he is and he deliberately says incredibly stupid and wrong things because they helps his argument and he knows few people, especially The Telegraph Blimps he's trying to tickle, will bother to take him up on it.
I can't tell if Hannan is just hugely stupid or if he's delibertly mendacious.
One of Theresa May's better judgements was to squelch his Westminster ambitions.
1) The Conservatives adopted that name officially in 1834, although it had been in use before then. Although Blake argues that the Protectionists were a 'new party' in 1846 because of the loss of much of the leadership, his argument is not wholly convincing;
2) The Liberals didn't technically exist at all until 1859 - until then you should probably say 'non-Protectionist' coalitions as that is essentially what they were. Ironically the split over the Corn Laws was a key element in founding that as well. Moreover although the Conservatives didn't have a majority in this time they did of course have several spells in office, most notably 1866-68.
I would suggest a more exact parallel would be the Tariff Reform Movement of 1903 onwards, which dominated Conservative political thought for the next 29 years, cost them four elections one of which at least should have been unloseable and saw them repeatedly split within themselves before finally being enacted at the moment of least relevance and most damage.
It is also in many ways a better parallel because Labour, having been staunchly opposed to tariffs for most of its previous existence, promptly adopted it as a policy and took it much further and more aggressively than the Unionists/Conservatives ever had. And we all know Corbyn and Macdonnell will ultimately look for the hardest Brexit possible to implement their more radical ideas.
An excellent response to an excellent thread header.
Even the risks of a so called 'Car Crash Brexit' can be exaggerated.
'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent. Set against our new commercial opportunities overseas, and our deregulatory opportunities at home, that doesn’t seem so bad.' https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html
Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says on economics.
As a case in point - the estimates he is referring to only apply to UK exports of goods, and only apply to the reduction from tariffs.
Hannan really is an utter charlatan - as he constantly makes false statements an A Level economics student can spot, in fact we did - as he came to give a talk to my A Level economics class many years ago proselytising about Iceland. Either he's not very clever and has won plaudits for his style because he throws in the odd Gibbon quote into deliberately contrarian, but ultimately factually empty essays, or he is and he deliberately says incredibly stupid and wrong things because they helps his argument and he knows few people, especially The Telegraph Blimps he's trying to tickle, will bother to take him up on it.
I can't tell if Hannan is just hugely stupid or if he's delibertly mendacious.
One of Theresa May's better judgements was to squelch his Westminster ambitions.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
Actually that's not true.
The 0.7% target has been there since the 70s, other countries hit that target from the 70s onwards.
Even the risks of a so called 'Car Crash Brexit' can be exaggerated.
'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent. Set against our new commercial opportunities overseas, and our deregulatory opportunities at home, that doesn’t seem so bad.' https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html
Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says on economics.
As a case in point - the estimates he is referring to only apply to UK exports of goods, and only apply to the reduction from tariffs.
Hannan really is an utter charlatan - as he constantly makes false statements an A Level economics student can spot, in fact we did - as he came to give a talk to my A Level economics class many years ago proselytising about Iceland. Either he's not very clever and has won plaudits for his style because he throws in the odd Gibbon quote into deliberately contrarian, but ultimately factually empty essays, or he is and he deliberately says incredibly stupid and wrong things because they helps his argument and he knows few people, especially The Telegraph Blimps he's trying to tickle, will bother to take him up on it.
I can't tell if Hannan is just hugely stupid or if he's delibertly mendacious.
One of Theresa May's better judgements was to squelch his Westminster ambitions.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Brexit is not just an economic decision, or an abtruse one about judicial sovereignty, it is a fundamental cultural view. Is Britain an ethno-state or a state based on ideas and values?
Yesterdays Yougov is illustrative of this. 70% of Remain voters think of Britons who were born abroad and then naturalised as British, while only 36% of Leavers do. The party breakdown is as one would expect from this:
As you should know, the NHS has categories for defining ethnic origin, with category A for White British. Anyone who does not fall into this category is not regarded by the NHS as British, whether or not they hold UK citizenship. All my grandparents were born in England and were UK citizens, but I am categorised as C (White Other European) according to the NHS, as all their parents came from elsewhere in Europe.
There is a separate Category B for White Irish, which would presumably also be self-applied by people from the 6 counties who are of the nationalist persuasion. Categories from D onwards are for people of various non-white ethnicities.
If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.
But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.
The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.
Extension of A50 period is the most obvious way of avoiding car crash Brexit without cancelling Brexit.
May is the ultimate Brexit saboteur. Fixing the exit date is an obvious ruse to make cancellation the only option.
I think she is trying to be more Catholic than the Pope hence the law on the date and Brexit means Brexit vacuity and generally boxing herself and, more importantly, the country into a corner from which the only options are a climbdown or a car crash.
Any sensible politician would have realised that unpicking a relationship of over 40 years duration would take time and should be done slowly and gradually and methodically and with some thought and care.
Instead we’ve had grandstanding and threats and bluff and bluster and time wasted on pointless fights.
I was glad that the Tories did not get a huge majority in June because they become unbearably arrogant when they do have such majorities. Now I’m beginning to wish that they would just crawl away into some dark corner never to be heard of again.
It is extraordinary just how an ostensibly patriotic party has lost sight of what is in the economic interests of the country and the wellbeing of its people.
There's nothing patriotic about acquiescing in the UK's slow absorption into federalist political structures.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
Actually that's not true.
The 0.7% target has been there since the 70s, other countries hit that target from the 70s onwards.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
Actually that's not true.
The 0.7% target has been there since the 70s, other countries hit that target from the 70s onwards.
Whilst modern Conservatism was formed around The Corn-Laws the initial fracture was The Great Reform Act (1832): Getting rid off the modern "Dunny-on-the-Wold"s - Luxembourg, Brussels and Wallonia - from disproportionate influence on Westminster would be a better anology. As for free-trade the EU is a collective which forces us to pay-to-trade: Not Peelite but old-school 'One-Nation' protectionism.
Time to be rid and to sail to a brighter future....
Our mid nineteenth century domination of Free Trade was in large part because of 2 factors: Our prime mover status of being the original site of the industrial revolution and secondly that post 1805 we dominated the trade routes of the world via the Royal Navy. It is easy to conveniently forget that our Free Traders were significantly helped by the barrel of a gun...
There is a third - the deliberate destruction of the indigenous industries of our colonies, and transformation of them into suppliers of raw materials (particularly India). But that does rather reinforce your second point.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
Hmm, may be more to it than that.
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Conservative DNA has plainly changed. No one can claim that Brexit was unpopular with Conservative voters in general. They are no longer unideological people who simply react to the ideological Labour Party.
That's a very good summary of how Conservative Governments operated for most of the 20th Century.
Except the change happened some time ago. No one would suggest that Margaret Thatcher's governments were not ideological. They swallowed monetarism hook, line and sinker. Her belief in a property owning democracy was ideological and behind much of the privatisation policy. So the Tories have been ideological for 40 years now with the odd break of pragmatism.
My instinct is to look at what works but it is hard to deny that such a pragmatic approach frequently results in governments at the mercy of the fluctuating weather rather than making it. Neither extreme of ideologue or pragmatist really seems to work. An ideal politician has a base set of principles or beliefs about what sort of country they want but is open to the evidence of what works in practice and what does not. They are thin on the ground.
Monetarism was effectively abandoned by the mid-80s. Then it was the poll tax, that was abandoned too. So was the ERM.
I wouldn't argue property owning democracy was ideological. Successive Conservative Governments have been pursuing that since the advent of mass democracy following WW1.
Following the 1990s, I think Major and Cameron were both in the mould Sean described.
Monetarism survived into the early 90s, albeit in different forms and with different targets. it was really the departure of Nigel Lawson that meant that interest faded. I agree that Major and Cameron were both more pragmatic but as I said this also meant they got pushed around a lot.
On topic, blistering good piece David, one of your best.
I've been saying this for a while (and that Brexit could do to the Tories what WW1 did to the Liberals)
Blair showed us why the predictions of the death of one of {tory, labour} which we have been hearing since at least 1979 are wide of the mark. Both parties are so valuable as mega corporations that you would be bonkers to start a new party if you can steal an existing one, like the virus Toxoplasma Gondii taking over the brain of a cat. The relative middle-ground consensus on most matters between the parties and the number of different factions within each makes this ideologically possible in a way it wasn't at the time of the strange death of the Liberal party: that there was less than a decade between Blair and Corbyn proves this beyond doubt. So why write a brand new phone operating system when it's so easy to steal android or ios?
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
All of the back of Suez, and post-WWII/Cold War politics.
It might have been a model that worked for us 30 years ago, but it isn't today.
Hmm. Anyone who watched Smallville might be rather surprised, alarmed and disturbed at the Allison Mack (played Chloe Sullivan) headlines. It seems they emerged a few days ago, but have gotten rather less coverage than those about Louis CK, for example.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Blaming the EU for the UK’s own inadequacies has worked and we’re leaving. But it will not make any diiference to our long-term issues with mediocre management and quarter to quarter strategic planning. Historically, the UK has failed to invest in R&D and has missed countless opportunities to take leadership positions. Our handing over the development of graphene technology - invented here - being but the latest example. Protectionism is not going to help us. It will just raise prices.
Brexit is not just an economic decision, or an abtruse one about judicial sovereignty, it is a fundamental cultural view. Is Britain an ethno-state or a state based on ideas and values?
Yesterdays Yougov is illustrative of this. 70% of Remain voters think of Britons who were born abroad and then naturalised as British, while only 36% of Leavers do. The party breakdown is as one would expect from this:
As you should know, the NHS has categories for defining ethnic origin, with category A for White British. Anyone who does not fall into this category is not regarded by the NHS as British, whether or not they hold UK citizenship. All my grandparents were born in England and were UK citizens, but I am categorised as C (White Other European) according to the NHS, as all their parents came from elsewhere in Europe.
There is a separate Category B for White Irish, which would presumably also be self-applied by people from the 6 counties who are of the nationalist persuasion. Categories from D onwards are for people of various non-white ethnicities.
That classification is just for compulsory equal opportunities monitoring to comply with government edicts.
The Yougov poll is about peoples perceptions. The difference between Remainers and Leavers in attitude to naturalised Britons is stark.
There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.
Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.
My first house went from £190k in Dec 2009 to a sale agreed at £280k in Feb 2017, and that's in the south-east.
The sale fell through, so we switched to a let-to-buy instead, but that feels like that's slightly ahead of real wage rises to me.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
Actually that's not true.
The 0.7% target has been there since the 70s, other countries hit that target from the 70s onwards.
What I meant is that no other country has been inspired by the UK increasing its Overseas Aid spending to do likewise (and the Netherlands have stopped meeting the target according to that OECD document).
Comparing to the other G7 countries:
Germany 0.52% France 0.37% Canada 0.28% Japan 0.22% Italy 0.21% USA 0.17%
Now you could argue about moral obligations and longterm benefits but borrowing extra money to give away when your debts are already well above forecast isn't the example we should be giving to the third world IMO.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
Actually that's not true.
The 0.7% target has been there since the 70s, other countries hit that target from the 70s onwards.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Blaming the EU for the UK’s own inadequacies has worked and we’re leaving. But it will not make any diiference to our long-term issues with mediocre management and quarter to quarter strategic planning. Historically, the UK has failed to invest in R&D and has missed countless opportunities to take leadership positions. Our handing over the development of graphene technology - invented here - being but the latest example. Protectionism is not going to help us. It will just raise prices.
I agree with you on quite a bit of that. The history books I'm reading now make it very clear that lack of investment in R&D, poor staff training and complacent management - combined with a snobbery about business and trade - was a problem in the late 19th Century.
We've had it for over 125 years. It needs fixing too.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Blaming the EU for the UK’s own inadequacies has worked and we’re leaving. But it will not make any diiference to our long-term issues with mediocre management and quarter to quarter strategic planning. Historically, the UK has failed to invest in R&D and has missed countless opportunities to take leadership positions. Our handing over the development of graphene technology - invented here - being but the latest example. Protectionism is not going to help us. It will just raise prices.
I agree with you on quite a bit of that. The history books I'm reading now make it very clear that lack of investment in R&D, poor staff training and complacent management - combined with a snobbery about business and trade - was a problem in the late 19th Century.
We've had it for over 125 years. It needs fixing too.
Yep, totally agree. Short-termism in business and investment mitigates against it though. God knows how we begin to turn it around.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
We've been the consumer of last resort, and the employer of last resort, for other nations.
@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!
Thanks.
I did some lazy generalisation too in my young vs old argument!
Ultimately we are all complex individuals and there are limits to this sort of determainistic social analysis.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds
@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!
Thanks.
I did some lazy generalisation too in my young vs old argument!
Ultimately we are all complex individuals and there are limits to this sort of determainistic social analysis.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds
We are a net contributor to EU coffers...
if you beg hard enough we'll give you some of your own money back
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
Hmm, may be more to it than that.
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
Import substitution is also helping industrial production.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
How does disconnecting from the world help us do better within it? Surely we should try to make globalisation work for us rather than reject it? Those that do worst are those that are most cut off from globalisation. There are European countries that do better than us. Germany for example has more trade and less unemployment. We don't have to reject and accept mediocrity. We can aspire to be good.
Nevertheless your point gets to the nub of the issue in a most elegant way. Brexit is a failure of liberalism and the global outlook. That failure is rooted in real shortcomings, even if the reaction to it, in the form of leaving the EU, vastly compounds those problems and does nothing at all to help.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
Blaming the EU for the UK’s own inadequacies has worked and we’re leaving. But it will not make any diiference to our long-term issues with mediocre management and quarter to quarter strategic planning. Historically, the UK has failed to invest in R&D and has missed countless opportunities to take leadership positions. Our handing over the development of graphene technology - invented here - being but the latest example. Protectionism is not going to help us. It will just raise prices.
I agree with you on quite a bit of that. The history books I'm reading now make it very clear that lack of investment in R&D, poor staff training and complacent management - combined with a snobbery about business and trade - was a problem in the late 19th Century.
We've had it for over 125 years. It needs fixing too.
This book is a classic of why British Industry declined:
I read it because of my interest in old motorcycles, but as a tale of industrial incompetence it is staggering. In the 1960's Britains motorcycle industry was the third biggest export earner. Within a decade it was nearly extinct.
Triumph (a Leicestershire based firm now) have had a significant revival, but the bikes are substantially made of imported parts from a Thai factory. If my midlife crisis worsens then I could see myself on a 2017 T100 Bonneville.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
Hmm, may be more to it than that.
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
We don't have a strong economy though do we - a trillion quid of government borrowing and stagnant productivity and wages during the last deacde show that.
Having an exchange rate to suit exporters rather than consumers of imorted tat and foreign holidays is a sign of balance not weakness.
After all we are continually told that Germany benefits from having an artificially low exchange rate.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
Hmm, may be more to it than that.
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
Import substitution is also helping industrial production.
as Ive banged on here for years, import substitution is easier than exports
much of the UK deficit in manufactured goods is for mid tech items from medium to high cost countries - cars, fridges, steel
our deficit is structural becasue we let too many industries go to help tax avoiding multinats earn bigger CEO bonuses
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
Hmm, may be more to it than that.
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
The percentage of our exports going to Europe has started to rise again. It’s no surprise that as our biggest market recovers we benefit. That said, we are growing in the slow lane as others accelerate. That will put further pressure on public finances.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
Blaming the EU for the UK’s own inadequacies has worked and we’re leaving. But it will not make any diiference to our long-term issues with mediocre management and quarter to quarter strategic planning. Historically, the UK has failed to invest in R&D and has missed countless opportunities to take leadership positions. Our handing over the development of graphene technology - invented here - being but the latest example. Protectionism is not going to help us. It will just raise prices.
I agree with you on quite a bit of that. The history books I'm reading now make it very clear that lack of investment in R&D, poor staff training and complacent management - combined with a snobbery about business and trade - was a problem in the late 19th Century.
We've had it for over 125 years. It needs fixing too.
This book is a classic of why British Industry declined:
I read it because of my interest in old motorcycles, but as a tale of industrial incompetence it is staggering. In the 1960's Britains motorcycle industry was the third biggest export earner. Within a decade it was nearly extinct.
Triumph (a Leicestershire based firm now) have had a significant revival, but the bikes are substantially made of imported parts from a Thai factory. If my midlife crisis worsens then I could see myself on a 2017 T100 Bonneville.
It’s a similar story with jet aircraft. Another UK invention, of course.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Blaming the EU for the UK’s own inadequacies has worked and we’re leaving. But it will not make any diiference to our long-term issues with mediocre management and quarter to quarter strategic planning. Historically, the UK has failed to invest in R&D and has missed countless opportunities to take leadership positions. Our handing over the development of graphene technology - invented here - being but the latest example. Protectionism is not going to help us. It will just raise prices.
I agree with you on quite a bit of that. The history books I'm reading now make it very clear that lack of investment in R&D, poor staff training and complacent management - combined with a snobbery about business and trade - was a problem in the late 19th Century.
We've had it for over 125 years. It needs fixing too.
A related British disease is that Britons see housing as an investment. As such much British wealth is invested in bidding up and maintaining house prices, rather than in more productive use of capital.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Indeed, the issue is now rather more complex than what economic theory would suggest.
Free trade has certainly worked to the advantage of those able to make use of all its aspects.
Those who can produce at third world costs, sell at first world prices and pay tax at Monaco rates for example.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
All of the back of Suez, and post-WWII/Cold War politics.
It might have been a model that worked for us 30 years ago, but it isn't today.
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
All of the back of Suez, and post-WWII/Cold War politics.
It might have been a model that worked for us 30 years ago, but it isn't today.
Brexit is the model that works for today. Really?
Looking at the last 40 years the EU model hasnt exactly served us well
The PB Brexiteer mood seems to be swinging against Free Trade and towards protectionism and import substitution.
Free Trade is very much a two edged sword, and tends to be best used by those with the muscle to use it. In the 19th century we had that muscle, but now?
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
All of the back of Suez, and post-WWII/Cold War politics.
It might have been a model that worked for us 30 years ago, but it isn't today.
Brexit is the model that works for today. Really?
Looking at the last 40 years the EU model hasnt exactly served us well
Nevertheless you haven't answered my question. Is Brexit the model that will work for us? (You don't have to - it's impertinent to demand you do) If it isn't the model that works, maybe we should find one that does.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
How does disconnecting from the world help us do better within it? Surely we should try to make globalisation work for us rather than reject it? Those that do worst are those that are most cut off from globalisation. There are European countries that do better than us. Germany for example has more trade and less unemployment. We don't have to reject and accept mediocrity. We can aspire to be good.
Nevertheless your point gets to the nub of the issue in a most elegant way. Brexit is a failure of liberalism and the global outlook. That failure is rooted in real shortcomings, even if the reaction to it, in the form of leaving the EU, vastly compounds those problems and does nothing at all to help.
Yep, leaving the EU is not going to improve the chronic deficiencies in British business and investment. And it certainly will not facilitate the creation of new mid-tech manufacturing. The UK market just isn’t big enough on its own to justify the outlay.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
Hmm, may be more to it than that.
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
Import substitution is also helping industrial production.
as Ive banged on here for years, import substitution is easier than exports
much of the UK deficit in manufactured goods is for mid tech items from medium to high cost countries - cars, fridges, steel
our deficit is structural becasue we let too many industries go to help tax avoiding multinats earn bigger CEO bonuses
Economics isn't my strong point, but the difference from the 19th century to now isn't just relative economic strength but also the nature of economics generally. The internet and globalisation, coupled with transport infrastructure, has changed things dramatically.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
Blaming the EU for the UK’s own inadequacies has worked and we’re leaving. But it will not make any diiference to our long-term issues with mediocre management and quarter to quarter strategic planning. Historically, the UK has failed to invest in R&D and has missed countless opportunities to take leadership positions. Our handing over the development of graphene technology - invented here - being but the latest example. Protectionism is not going to help us. It will just raise prices.
I agree with you on quite a bit of that. The history books I'm reading now make it very clear that lack of investment in R&D, poor staff training and complacent management - combined with a snobbery about business and trade - was a problem in the late 19th Century.
We've had it for over 125 years. It needs fixing too.
This book is a classic of why British Industry declined:
I read it because of my interest in old motorcycles, but as a tale of industrial incompetence it is staggering. In the 1960's Britains motorcycle industry was the third biggest export earner. Within a decade it was nearly extinct.
Triumph (a Leicestershire based firm now) have had a significant revival, but the bikes are substantially made of imported parts from a Thai factory. If my midlife crisis worsens then I could see myself on a 2017 T100 Bonneville.
It’s a similar story with jet aircraft. Another UK invention, of course.
In fairness we still build the two most important bits - the wings and the engines - where the technology and value (well over half) are......
A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.
It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.
And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.
Hubris. It will destroy them.
We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.
We would have voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and eventually obtained a form of associate membership, or additional opt-outs, in order to allow the rest of the EU to proceed.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
We had thirty years of posturing, surrendering and deceit from British governments about the EU.
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
All of the back of Suez, and post-WWII/Cold War politics.
It might have been a model that worked for us 30 years ago, but it isn't today.
Brexit is the model that works for today. Really?
Looking at the last 40 years the EU model hasnt exactly served us well
Nevertheless you haven't answered my question. Is Brexit the model that will work for us? (You don't have to - it's impertinent to demand you do) If it isn't the model that works, maybe we should find one that does.
nobody can tell yet
for a start off we dont yet know the shape of leaving wto, soft etc
all we can say is that a slim majority voted to change a system that didnt work for them, in the hope that we'll find a better way of doing things
as an optimist on this countries abilities I believe we will
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
Hmm, may be more to it than that.
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
Import substitution is also helping industrial production.
as Ive banged on here for years, import substitution is easier than exports
much of the UK deficit in manufactured goods is for mid tech items from medium to high cost countries - cars, fridges, steel
our deficit is structural becasue we let too many industries go to help tax avoiding multinats earn bigger CEO bonuses
The hospitality sector has generally done well over the past year, too, as more people take holidays at home.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
Hmm, may be more to it than that.
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
Import substitution is also helping industrial production.
as Ive banged on here for years, import substitution is easier than exports
much of the UK deficit in manufactured goods is for mid tech items from medium to high cost countries - cars, fridges, steel
our deficit is structural becasue we let too many industries go to help tax avoiding multinats earn bigger CEO bonuses
Project Management 101: find out who owns your primary constraint, e.g. deadline, and work them to get it lifted. Avoid any temptation to encapsulate the constraint in primary legislation.
The PB Brexiteer mood seems to be swinging against Free Trade and towards protectionism and import substitution.
Free Trade is very much a two edged sword, and tends to be best used by those with the muscle to use it. In the 19th century we had that muscle, but now?
import substitution isnt protectionism
it's simply building things at home instead of importing them
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Indeed, the issue is now rather more complex than what economic theory would suggest.
Free trade has certainly worked to the advantage of those able to make use of all its aspects.
Those who can produce at third world costs, sell at first world prices and pay tax at Monaco rates for example.
Tens of millions in the UK have benefited from the availability of low-price, high-quality technology free trade has delivered.
Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out
The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.
It already has boosted the Leave areas:
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
Hmm, may be more to it than that.
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
Import substitution is also helping industrial production.
as Ive banged on here for years, import substitution is easier than exports
much of the UK deficit in manufactured goods is for mid tech items from medium to high cost countries - cars, fridges, steel
our deficit is structural becasue we let too many industries go to help tax avoiding multinats earn bigger CEO bonuses
Wither free trade?
Bring back British Leyland.
British Leyland is alive and well
now it's called JLR and Mini and builds more cars than ever but sells them for twice the price.
the stagnation in UK car production has come from Ford pulling out of UK assembly and moving production to Spain and Germany
they have of course not profited from it as their matket share in the UK has collapsed too
Looking at the last 40 years the EU model hasnt exactly served us well
Nevertheless you haven't answered my question. Is Brexit the model that will work for us? (You don't have to - it's impertinent to demand you do) If it isn't the model that works, maybe we should find one that does.
nobody can tell yet
for a start off we dont yet know the shape of leaving wto, soft etc
all we can say is that a slim majority voted to change a system that didnt work for them, in the hope that we'll find a better way of doing things
as an optimist on this countries abilities I believe we will
Thanks. Are the kind of compromises David mentions in his header acceptable to you as the price for getting a better way of doing things? For example a payment of €60 billion to the EU against the clearing off of obligations, a two year transition arrangement and the outline of a permanent arrangement to be negotiated after we leave.
The PB Brexiteer mood seems to be swinging against Free Trade and towards protectionism and import substitution.
Free Trade is very much a two edged sword, and tends to be best used by those with the muscle to use it. In the 19th century we had that muscle, but now?
Protectionism is clearly not the solution. The UK market is not big enough. If we are to succeed we need to export.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Indeed, the issue is now rather more complex than what economic theory would suggest.
Free trade has certainly worked to the advantage of those able to make use of all its aspects.
Those who can produce at third world costs, sell at first world prices and pay tax at Monaco rates for example.
Tens of millions in the UK have benefited from the availability of low-price, high-quality technology free trade has delivered.
I read it because of my interest in old motorcycles, but as a tale of industrial incompetence it is staggering. In the 1960's Britains motorcycle industry was the third biggest export earner. Within a decade it was nearly extinct.
Triumph (a Leicestershire based firm now) have had a significant revival, but the bikes are substantially made of imported parts from a Thai factory. If my midlife crisis worsens then I could see myself on a 2017 T100 Bonneville.
The dealer gave me a 'modern' Boneville while they were doing warranty work on my bike. pleasant enough but really heavy & underbraked. However if having drooling men of a certain age striking up conversations with you is your bag, a Bonny outperforms all sorts of Italian exotica.
Looking at the last 40 years the EU model hasnt exactly served us well
Nevertheless you haven't answered my question. Is Brexit the model that will work for us? (You don't have to - it's impertinent to demand you do) If it isn't the model that works, maybe we should find one that does.
nobody can tell yet
for a start off we dont yet know the shape of leaving wto, soft etc
all we can say is that a slim majority voted to change a system that didnt work for them, in the hope that we'll find a better way of doing things
as an optimist on this countries abilities I believe we will
Thanks. Are the kind of compromises David mentions in his header acceptable to you as the price for getting a better way of doing things? For example a payment of €60 billion to the EU against the clearing off of obligations, a two year transition arrangement and the outline of a permanent arrangement to be negotiated after we leave.
Looking at the last 40 years the EU model hasnt exactly served us well
Nevertheless you haven't answered my question. Is Brexit the model that will work for us? (You don't have to - it's impertinent to demand you do) If it isn't the model that works, maybe we should find one that does.
nobody can tell yet
for a start off we dont yet know the shape of leaving wto, soft etc
all we can say is that a slim majority voted to change a system that didnt work for them, in the hope that we'll find a better way of doing things
as an optimist on this countries abilities I believe we will
Thanks. Are the kind of compromises David mentions in his header acceptable to you as the price for getting a better way of doing things? For example a payment of €60 billion to the EU against the clearing off of obligations, a two year transition arrangement and the outline of a permanent arrangement to be negotiated after we leave.
It isn't a trick question. Genuinely interested.
I voted leave and was quite happy with a soft Brexit and still am
we have obligations within budgets and should pay them
I suspect once the dust has settled we will find our own ways of trading with the EU when the next generation of politicians are looking at the economics rather than the blame game of a divorce
Comments
there isnt
Had the election been Cameron v Yvette Cooper for instance you probably would have voted.
What it will do is put an end to the UK's participation in the EU's federalist political project.
I think you have something here. Leicester has had a lot of regeneration too over the last 25 years that I have lived here. The West End (around Narborough Rd suposedly the most diverse street in the country) is an interesting mix of ethno-hipsters and students. The Highcross development has kept shoppers in the city centre, and the cultural quarter around the Curve theatre has regenerated an area that was derelict mills when I moved here. There is still a lot of deprivation around, but there is a buzz and cultural identity to the place. Leicester voted narrowly for Remain.
It would have lanced the boil.
Looking the other way, one should consider the consequences if successive UK Governments - of whatever stripe - had continued to deny the electorate any form of a vote on the EU.
the UK is good for three things: the greater external security of liberal democracy, a depth of multinational solidarity of which the European Union can still only dream, and the upholding of a humane international order. And all of that will remain true, whether or not Brexit comes to pass.
http://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i260/what_the_united_kingdom_is_good_for.aspx
I feel better about the result, all of a sudden.
' "Industrial production has risen for six consecutive months, a feat last achieved 23 years ago," said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41939068
Take a look at where manufacturing is based - its heartland in Britain are all those 60% Leave towns with lower division football clubs.
Even the cities which still have manufacturing are those that voted Leave - Birmingham, Sheffield, Coventry, Stoke, Sunderland.
I recommend using a mortgage broker. I used Which?, who charged £499 fee but were very good and I more than saved that money in the deal.
Obviously he didn’t just convince the Telegraph gang because Leave won the referendum with 17m votes. He went out and convinced people - just look at the fact that he went and spoke to your a level students.
Ultimately though he and his gang have talked us into a big mistake.
But if we’re being honest - Remainers like me lacked the passion his side showed. I should have been out there campaigning or at least giving money or something. I honestly didn’t think that stuff made much difference and I see now that I was wrong.
Here's me wishing I had take the 5/1 on the Dem. 1 day snap poll has them tied, previous polling was an 11 point lead for Moore.
My instinct is to look at what works but it is hard to deny that such a pragmatic approach frequently results in governments at the mercy of the fluctuating weather rather than making it. Neither extreme of ideologue or pragmatist really seems to work. An ideal politician has a base set of principles or beliefs about what sort of country they want but is open to the evidence of what works in practice and what does not. They are thin on the ground.
The sale fell through, so we switched to a let-to-buy instead, but that feels like that's slightly ahead of real wage rises to me.
Lancing is only curative if well drained. If you let the pus infect the rest of the body the problem spreads.
The divide over Brexit persists with few changing their minds. It is fundamentally a divide over values, perhaps oversimplified as natavists vs internationalists.
One reason that Brexit is so problematic is that the form of Brexit follows the same division. Should we be fortress Britain pulling up the drawbridge, or international Britain allowing free movement of goods, services, ideas and people?
If it is the former, then count me out.
I wouldn't argue property owning democracy was ideological. Successive Conservative Governments have been pursuing that since the advent of mass democracy following WW1.
Following the 1990s, I think Major and Cameron were both in the mould Sean described.
What will the public think now of the man who might have been PM of an independent Scotland, of the causes he espoused, and of the party he fashioned, now that he is in bed with an industrial lie machine?
What will they think of the White Paper he promoted, and of the deputy who promoted it with him? What will they think the next time they are offered a vote on the issue?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15655405.Tom_Gordon__Salmond_playing_Russian_roulette_with_the_SNP__39_s_cause/?ref=twtrec
And it was a process matched by a simultaneous fawning to the USA.
Even the increase in Overseas Aid (which no other country has chosen to emulate) is part of the same pattern of desperate insecurity that British governments have to other countries.
Free movement of people is very different to goods, services, ideas and capital, for what should be obvious reasons.
But for Dems to win in Alabama - even with special circumstances- is absolutely crazy.
The 0.7% target has been there since the 70s, other countries hit that target from the 70s onwards.
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-history-of-the-0-7-target.pdf#page=2
I've been saying this for a while (and that Brexit could do to the Tories what WW1 did to the Liberals)
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
There is a separate Category B for White Irish, which would presumably also be self-applied by people from the 6 counties who are of the nationalist persuasion. Categories from D onwards are for people of various non-white ethnicities.
in the 70s China was a basket case it;s now arguably the worlds leading economic power
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-week-priti-patel-8psfcmpnk
The devaluation of Sterling has helped (at least while stocks of imported materials persist) but the other big factor is surely in large part because of strong economic recovery in the Eurozone and our integrated supply chains there. Devaluing usually brings a short term boost, but is not really a sign of a strong economy.
What percentage in the rise of industrial exports is to the EU/EEA or via an EU Free Trade agreement? and what percentage to the rest of the world?
It might have been a model that worked for us 30 years ago, but it isn't today.
The Yougov poll is about peoples perceptions. The difference between Remainers and Leavers in attitude to naturalised Britons is stark.
Comparing to the other G7 countries:
Germany 0.52%
France 0.37%
Canada 0.28%
Japan 0.22%
Italy 0.21%
USA 0.17%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors
Now you could argue about moral obligations and longterm benefits but borrowing extra money to give away when your debts are already well above forecast isn't the example we should be giving to the third world IMO.
We've had it for over 125 years. It needs fixing too.
https://www.rt.com/news/408915-tsar-nicholas-uk-asylum/
the Tsars cousin was a shit
Nevertheless your point gets to the nub of the issue in a most elegant way. Brexit is a failure of liberalism and the global outlook. That failure is rooted in real shortcomings, even if the reaction to it, in the form of leaving the EU, vastly compounds those problems and does nothing at all to help.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1859604277/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510394624&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=british+motorcycle+industry&dpPl=1&dpID=51VnPrPy6IL&ref=plSrch
I read it because of my interest in old motorcycles, but as a tale of industrial incompetence it is staggering. In the 1960's Britains motorcycle industry was the third biggest export earner. Within a decade it was nearly extinct.
Triumph (a Leicestershire based firm now) have had a significant revival, but the bikes are substantially made of imported parts from a Thai factory. If my midlife crisis worsens then I could see myself on a 2017 T100 Bonneville.
Having an exchange rate to suit exporters rather than consumers of imorted tat and foreign holidays is a sign of balance not weakness.
After all we are continually told that Germany benefits from having an artificially low exchange rate.
much of the UK deficit in manufactured goods is for mid tech items from medium to high cost countries - cars, fridges, steel
our deficit is structural becasue we let too many industries go to help tax avoiding multinats earn bigger CEO bonuses
Free trade has certainly worked to the advantage of those able to make use of all its aspects.
Those who can produce at third world costs, sell at first world prices and pay tax at Monaco rates for example.
Free Trade is very much a two edged sword, and tends to be best used by those with the muscle to use it. In the 19th century we had that muscle, but now?
for a start off we dont yet know the shape of leaving wto, soft etc
all we can say is that a slim majority voted to change a system that didnt work for them, in the hope that we'll find a better way of doing things
as an optimist on this countries abilities I believe we will
Bring back British Leyland.
it's simply building things at home instead of importing them
now it's called JLR and Mini and builds more cars than ever but sells them for twice the price.
the stagnation in UK car production has come from Ford pulling out of UK assembly and moving production to Spain and Germany
they have of course not profited from it as their matket share in the UK has collapsed too
It isn't a trick question. Genuinely interested.
we have obligations within budgets and should pay them
I suspect once the dust has settled we will find our own ways of trading with the EU when the next generation of politicians are looking at the economics rather than the blame game of a divorce