Interesting article on one of the EU countries with most to lose from no deal...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41986090 ....It was a suggestion I made to the Dutch minister for European affairs, Anne Mulder. Was it time, I asked, for the Netherlands and other influential EU nations to offer the UK more concessions, given all would suffer from a breakdown of talks? The Dutch have a reputation for politeness, and I was expecting a reply laden with diplomatic euphemism. What I got was a surprisingly pithy denunciation of Britain's politicians, and their approach to the Brexit negotiations: "Some of them are unrealistic, they are not rational… they are always saying the ball is in the EU's court. Well there's a great big ball in their court, but they don't want to see, because they are blind." And what about the claim that the EU needs the UK just as much as the UK needs the EU? "If you want to dream, do it at night," he suggested....
A reputation for politeness? Only somebody with no experience of working in an international environment would make a comment like that.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Opinion polling for the next GE isn't able to project forward to who the PM will be by then. The change ought to give the Tories a boost, but they might manage to find someone worse than May.
Also, I am still not convinced that Jezza will still be there in 2022, and a change in LOTO will also have a big impact.
So at the moment movements in the polls (when there are any) are interesting, but not much else is relevant.
Agreed, there can be no election we have lived through where the known unknowns are as great as they will be by 2022.
It would be like expecting Mr. Dancer to tell us who was going to be the top dog in F1 in 2022....
Yes, there’s lots of known unknowns, we’re very likely to have two new main party leaders for a start.
Max Verstappen, a much easier prediction than politics.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
Thinking of a number and then doing some sums with it isn't the most convincing pitch. It also assumes implementation is well managed and that there are no adverse effects other than on the quantum of trade.
In political terms, you may be right that a loss of growth of the magnitude you predict could be swallowed if the economy is otherwise growing. But it seems to me that the reverse position is more likely, given that the global economy is precariously positioned and overdue for a correction. There will surely be a political price for worsening our position during a downturn.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
Hear hear. I do worry about the effects - will it be too high, did I make a mistake - but that there were people over selling how easy it would be doesn't make those predicting the end of the world less tiresome than those who said there'd be no problems at all, and swallowing whole cloth every negative interpretation is no more logical than ignoring that there will indeed be a price.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
All good stuff I think.
The quote from the Conservative Minister: "Labour always take it too far...."
Suggests they are also coming round to this logic.
Very interested to see what Hammond is going to do on housing. Rumours that he was going to cut stamp duty - which has been tried before - and I think would be seen as grossly inadequate.
My near daily whinge about discussing the polling: what is the point when we don't know if or how the polling companies have changed their methods in response to 2017? Maybe they've over corrected and May is creeping ahead. Maybe they're still under recording Labour. As it is, you may just as well try to understand politics now by reading the tarot.
It makes the graphs of polling we like to make narratives from just trash, reading into shifts in data that are just the result of shifts in methods. Until we know what changes the polling companies have made and when, their data is useless for any purpose.
I agree, but with two caveats:
1) the polls have never really been very reliable so this isn't a new thing; and
2) where methodologies haven't changed between polls, directions of travel are of some use. So I'm not very interested in ICM finding that Labour and the Conservatives are level. I am interested in them finding that neither seems to be declining much and that both' poll ratings have been consistent for months.
Do we know if they have changed their methods or not? Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention, but I only heard after GE2017 that they'd reduced the weighting for Labour leaning groups after getting 2015 wrong, making aĺl the discussions of trends crossing that boundary meaningless. Maybe we'll find out what changes they made after GE2017 after the next screw up.
Stability in top line figures doesn't mean stability, if they've got the weightings for different groups as badly wrong as previously. Over-weighted groups could be compensating for shifts in under-weighted ones. We just don't know.
The polls have never been reliable, but it's crazy to allow the polling to guide how we talk about politics when they've been so consistently wrong previously.
Even Survation, which got the 2017 general election almost spot on (although it actually fractionally underestimated the final Tory lead in contrast to most pollsters) has Corbyn without a big enough lead for a majority so it is clear we are still in hung parliament territory
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Borrowing and cracking down on tax avoidance. We'll, it's not like the tories will erase the deficit now anyway. He should have an easy budiet - whatever is said he can respond 'I'd spend more on this without raising taxes on anyone but corporations and the super rich (and maybe not even them)' and then watch as Hammonds internal enemies pick up on inevitable media backlash (inevitable as there's no easy options so something will piss people off) to try to get him sacked.
I think the ' Divorce Bill ' issue is rather old hat. Once we get passed the initial media hit both negative ( We're paying how much ? ) and positive ( May Trade Talks Triumph ) we just get a whole new set of problems. #1 May needs to then accept Transition without an agreed FTA by Brexit Day which she's said she wouldn't. #2 She needs to accept the quite small core of the bill that is genuinely divorce related will be paid in the A50 agreement. #3 She needs to accept on going payments however minor for the costs of the security treaty. #4 She then needs to accept that point #1 delays the cliff edge not avoids it and admit transition is actually extension in all but name #5 Then the big one. That anything remotely better than the shallowest FTA is going to incur *ongoing* budget contributions on a 1% to 100% scale varying between basic FTA and SM -
The extent to which these matters get caught up between Theological objections on one side and ' why the f*ck are we leaving then ? ' on the other will determine how we go.
I'll be particularly interested in the psychological impact of the penny dropping that Brexit Day isn't going to bring closure. That in fact negotiations will continue long into the now 27 month transition.
#1 is the point I have been trying to make. It is not acceptable. There needs to be a high level FTA agreed, subject to detailed work later, with payment of the Brexit bill linked to delivery. If May can't get that, she has to walk, basically for the reason you stated in #4. #5 is not going to be acceptable either - you don't pay for 'free' trade. On a CETA style agreement there will be no basis for payments. You could argue that virtual SM access might attract a small ongoing fee, but this doesn't appear to be on offer anyway.
The above are not going to be May's red lines - they are the red lines that will be forced on her by the public, the Tory party and the cabinet leavers. They are also in line with common tcomes.
This is where the UKIP comeback springs from: the sense of betrayal conviction Brexiteers will feel should May finally accept the reality of where we are - that the EU is in the box seat and there is no viable No Deal Brexit.
The polling pretty clearly indicates that a UKIP revival that takes support on the right away from the Tories is pretty much the only way Labour wins for as long as Corbyn is in charge.
Corbyn of course also won 20% of the UKIP vote in June, even Labour could lose a few votes to a revived UKIP
Opinion polling for the next GE isn't able to project forward to who the PM will be by then. The change ought to give the Tories a boost, but they might manage to find someone worse than May.
Also, I am still not convinced that Jezza will still be there in 2022, and a change in LOTO will also have a big impact.
So at the moment movements in the polls (when there are any) are interesting, but not much else is relevant.
Agreed, there can be no election we have lived through where the known unknowns are as great as they will be by 2022.
It would be like expecting Mr. Dancer to tell us who was going to be the top dog in F1 in 2022....
Yes, there’s lots of known unknowns, we’re very likely to have two new main party leaders for a start.
Max Verstappen, a much easier prediction than politics.
Vince will probably have handed over to a younger LD leader by then too. Probably Scottish and female. As for the Kippers, we are probably looking at 2 or 3 leader replacement cycles by then.
Housing appears to be an important topic for the budget. Recently the Government has been constrained because local housing associations, since last year, were classified as Government controlled for statistical purposes and this formed part of the Government accounts.
This means that all the borrowing of the local housing associations were included as part of the Government debt and deficit numbers. As a consequence the Government was controlling their borrowing, reducing affordable house building.
It would appear that the decision has now been taken by the ONS to reclassify, thus enabling the Government to permit more borrowing by Housing Associations and hence more affordable house building.
This is an artificial constraint - a consequence of fundamentalist conservative economic policy. Playing pointless games with the ONS to keep debt off the books.
Not borrowing to invest, when demand for housing is high, the economy is in the doldrums and global capital is begging for something safe to invest in was (and is) economic insanity.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
All good stuff I think.
The quote from the Conservative Minister: "Labour always take it too far...."
Suggests they are also coming round to this logic.
Very interested to see what Hammond is going to do on housing. Rumours that he was going to cut stamp duty - which has been tried before - and I think would be seen as grossly inadequate.
There’s only two things that will make a material difference to house prices in London (and house prices being unaffordable is a London and the South East problem), one is a massive house building program and the other a continuing increase in interest rates - neither of which are really issues for the Chancellor. What he could do is allow councils to collect taxes from the date of planning approval rather than the date of project completion, and work with other government departments to release unwanted govt-owned land for development.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Borrowing and cracking down on tax avoidance. We'll, it's not like the tories will erase the deficit now anyway. He should have an easy budiet - whatever is said he can respond 'I'd spend more on this without raising taxes on anyone but corporations and the super rich (and maybe not even them)' and then watch as Hammonds internal enemies pick up on inevitable media backlash (inevitable as there's no easy options so something will piss people off) to try to get him sacked.
He can say that but that is leaving him little room for manoeuvre especially when the likely next Government is a Labour minority government dependent on other parties for confidence and supply
My near daily whinge about discussing the polling: what is the point when we don't know if or how the polling companies have changed their methods in response to 2017? Maybe they've over corrected and May is creeping ahead. Maybe they're still under recording Labour. As it is, you may just as well try to understand politics now by reading the tarot.
It makes the graphs of polling we like to make narratives from just trash, reading into shifts in data that are just the result of shifts in methods. Until we know what changes the polling companies have made and when, their data is useless for any purpose.
I agree, but with two caveats:
1) the polls have never really been very reliable so this isn't a new thing; and
2) where methodologies haven't changed between polls, directions of travel are of some use. So I'm not very interested in ICM finding that Labour and the Conservatives are level. I am interested in them finding that neither seems to be declining much and that both' poll ratings have been consistent for months.
Do we know if they have changed their methods or not? Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention, but I only heard after GE2017 that they'd reduced the weighting for Labour leaning groups after getting 2015 wrong, making aĺl the discussions of trends crossing that boundary meaningless. Maybe we'll find out what changes they made after GE2017 after the next screw up.
Stability in top line figures doesn't mean stability, if they've got the weightings for different groups as badly wrong as previously. Over-weighted groups could be compensating for shifts in under-weighted ones. We just don't know.
The polls have never been reliable, but it's crazy to allow the polling to guide how we talk about politics when they've been so consistently wrong previously.
Even Survation, which got the 2017 general election almost spot on (although it actually fractionally underestimated the final Tory lead in contrast to most pollsters) has Corbyn without a big enough lead for a majority so it is clear we are still in hung parliament territory
As has been pointed out upthread, the idea of a GE at least before the end of Feb is simply a punters/pollsters pipe-dream. And even then, if May/the Tories should call one then.... yes I know about the FTPA .... I strongly suspect that the public would give them a great big raspberry. Whatever the polls suggest now.
Even if the Brexit negotiations go badly wrong, I don’t see a GE before October or thereabouts next year.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Borrowing and cracking down on tax avoidance. We'll, it's not like the tories will erase the deficit now anyway. He should have an easy budiet - whatever is said he can respond 'I'd spend more on this without raising taxes on anyone but corporations and the super rich (and maybe not even them)' and then watch as Hammonds internal enemies pick up on inevitable media backlash (inevitable as there's no easy options so something will piss people off) to try to get him sacked.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
All good stuff I think.
The quote from the Conservative Minister: "Labour always take it too far...."
Suggests they are also coming round to this logic.
Very interested to see what Hammond is going to do on housing. Rumours that he was going to cut stamp duty - which has been tried before - and I think would be seen as grossly inadequate.
Hammond is also likely to.push more housebuilding, he may even release some Greenbelt land to do so
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
I can't see any further cuts to Corporation Tax being offered, unless and until we have a no-deal Brexit, in which case it will be as low as is needed to keep - and then attract business - in the UK.
My near daily whinge about discussing the polling: what is the point when we don't know if or how the polling companies have changed their methods in response to 2017? Maybe they've over corrected and May is creeping ahead. Maybe they're still under recording Labour. As it is, you may just as well try to understand politics now by reading the tarot.
It makes the graphs of polling we like to make narratives from just trash, reading into shifts in data that are just the result of shifts in methods. Until we know what changes the polling companies have made and when, their data is useless for any purpose.
I agree, but with two caveats:
1) the polls have never really been very reliable so this isn't a new thing; and
2) where methodologies haven't changed between polls, directions of travel are of some use. So I'm not very interested in ICM finding that Labour and the Conservatives are level. I am interested in them finding that neither seems to be declining much and that both' poll ratings have been consistent for months.
Do we know if they have changed their methods or not? Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention, but I only heard after GE2017 that they'd reduced the weighting for Labour leaning groups after getting 2015 wrong, making aĺl the discussions of trends crossing that boundary meaningless. Maybe we'll find out what changes they made after GE2017 after the next screw up.
Stability in top line figures doesn't mean stability, if they've got the weightings for different groups as badly wrong as previously. Over-weighted groups could be compensating for shifts in under-weighted ones. We just don't know.
The polls have never been reliable, but it's crazy to allow the polling to guide how we talk about politics when they've been so consistently wrong previously.
Even Survation, which got the 2017 general election almost spot on (although it actually fractionally underestimated the final Tory lead in contrast to most pollsters) has Corbyn without a big enough lead for a majority so it is clear we are still in hung parliament territory
As has been pointed out upthread, the idea of a GE at least before the end of Feb is simply a punters/pollsters pipe-dream. And even then, if May/the Tories should call one then.... yes I know about the FTPA .... I strongly suspect that the public would give them a great big raspberry. Whatever the polls suggest now.
Even if the Brexit negotiations go badly wrong, I don’t see a GE before October or thereabouts next year.
Probably not before April 2019 even at the earliest
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
I can't see any further cuts to Corporation Tax being offered, unless and until we have a no-deal Brexit, in which case it will be as low as is needed to keep - and then attract business - in the UK.
McDonnell will have to crack down on it to fund his spending plans
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
I can't see any further cuts to Corporation Tax being offered, unless and until we have a no-deal Brexit, in which case it will be as low as is needed to keep - and then attract business - in the UK.
McDonnell will have to crack down on it to fund his spending plans
McDonnell - a much bigger threat to UK prosperity than Brexit....
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
Labour - Amazon & others set up 'Cheap DVDs' shipped from Jersey exploiting a VAT loophole intended to help Channel Island flower growers (no VAT paid on items under £17)
Conservatives - closed loophole & businesses shut down, throwing several hundred out of jobs.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Borrowing and cracking down on tax avoidance. We'll, it's not like the tories will erase the deficit now anyway. He should have an easy budiet - whatever is said he can respond 'I'd spend more on this without raising taxes on anyone but corporations and the super rich (and maybe not even them)' and then watch as Hammonds internal enemies pick up on inevitable media backlash (inevitable as there's no easy options so something will piss people off) to try to get him sacked.
He can say that but that is leaving him little room for manoeuvre especially when the likely next Government is a Labour minority government dependent on other parties for confidence and supply
For politicians that will always be a problem for another day. Even if you have to u-turn massively, overall the policies of party x are worth it.
My near daily whinge about discussing the polling: what is the point when we don't know if or how the polling companies have changed their methods in response to 2017? Maybe they've over corrected and May is creeping ahead. Maybe they're still under recording Labour. As it is, you may just as well try to understand politics now by reading the tarot.
It makes the graphs of polling we like to make narratives from just trash, reading into shifts in data that are just the result of shifts in methods. Until we know what changes the polling companies have made and when, their data is useless for any purpose.
I agree, but with two caveats:
1) the polls have never really been very reliable so this isn't a new thing; and
2) where methodologies haven't changed between polls, directions of travel are of some use. So I'm not very interested in ICM finding that Labour and the Conservatives are level. I am interested in them finding that neither seems to be declining much and that both' poll ratings have been consistent for months.
Do we know if they have changed their methods or not? Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention, but I only heard after GE2017 that they'd reduced the weighting for Labour leaning groups after getting 2015 wrong, making aĺl the discussions of trends crossing that boundary meaningless. Maybe we'll find out what changes they made after GE2017 after the next screw up.
Stability in top line figures doesn't mean stability, if they've got the weightings for different groups as badly wrong as previously. Over-weighted groups could be compensating for shifts in under-weighted ones. We just don't know.
The polls have never been reliable, but it's crazy to allow the polling to guide how we talk about politics when they've been so consistently wrong previously.
Even Survation, which got the 2017 general election almost spot on (although it actually fractionally underestimated the final Tory lead in contrast to most pollsters) has Corbyn without a big enough lead for a majority so it is clear we are still in hung parliament territory
As has been pointed out upthread, the idea of a GE at least before the end of Feb is simply a punters/pollsters pipe-dream. And even then, if May/the Tories should call one then.... yes I know about the FTPA .... I strongly suspect that the public would give them a great big raspberry. Whatever the polls suggest now.
Even if the Brexit negotiations go badly wrong, I don’t see a GE before October or thereabouts next year.
Probably not before April 2019 even at the earliest
Agree. That’s not something I often think when reading your posts!!!!!
There’s only two things that will make a material difference to house prices in London (and house prices being unaffordable is a London and the South East problem), one is a massive house building program and the other a continuing increase in interest rates - neither of which are really issues for the Chancellor. What he could do is allow councils to collect taxes from the date of planning approval rather than the date of project completion, and work with other government departments to release unwanted govt-owned land for development.
The ratio of median earnings to median prices is much higher in all regions comparing 2016 to 1997. London and South East definitely the worst, but East of England and South West not far behind.
Is housing at over 8 times salary really not a problem? Even 6 times seems a bit high to me...
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
That's the great thing about having McDonnell as chancellor. He's credible when he says he'll crack down on avoidance/evasion.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
That's the great thing about having McDonnell as chancellor. He's credible when he says he'll crack down on avoidance/evasion.
And how credible do you think he is when he claims that only those earning more than £80k will pay more tax?
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
That's the great thing about having McDonnell as chancellor. He's credible when he says he'll crack down on avoidance/evasion.
Will he start with his own pension and Labour's HQ?
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
That's the great thing about having McDonnell as chancellor. He's credible when he says he'll crack down on avoidance/evasion.
If Brexit happens and causes SERIOUS economic distress it's unlikely Labour will reap any political dividend at all. Corbyn's done nothing but distance himself from day one exemplified by his abject performance at PMQs yesterday.
Come the day of reckoning it won't just be the Tory negotiators and the lumbering Tory Union Jack wavers or the quisling Remainers like May who will be lined up against the wall but also those who allowed it to happen and at the front of that particular queue will be Corbyn.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
I broadly agree with this. Short and medium effects are likely to be significant, potentially severe. Long term a small relative decline compared with the EU is my central prediction.
My international comparator is Japan, a well populated island, aloof from an economically more important neighbour. Japan has had a couple of "lost decades" since the rise of China, where it has been seen to underperform. Japan has actually done OK for decades that are supposedly lost. It has decent employment rates and world class businesses. So basically I agree with your summary.
But - and this is a big but - in practice I don't think we will ever be free from the EU. They own the international system and we will accommodate ourselves to it. The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one. Unless "taking control" means voluntarily agreeing to do what we are told. We did better than that as members. People who voted Leave because they don't like the EU much and wish it would go away will be disappointed to find the EU dominating our lives far more outside than in.
Then there's the question of whether it is worth the disruption. But there we go ...
If Brexit happens and causes SERIOUS economic distress it's unlikely Labour will reap any political dividend at all. Corbyn's done nothing but distance himself from day one exemplified by his abject performance at PMQs yesterday.
Come the day of reckoning it won't just be the Tory negotiators and the lumbering Tory Union Jack wavers or the quisling Remainers like May who will be lined up against the wall but also those who allowed it to happen and at the front of that particular queue will be Corbyn.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
"provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution"
That seems pretty key.
You also seem to assume that there will be a level effect across all parts of the UK economy and geography. That seems far from certain to me.
I agree that the likelihood is there will be no disaster if we get a deal with the EU. But I voted Remain because I believed that leaving would reduce long-term GDP growth, leading to further, sustained cuts in public services and reductions in living standards. Nothing that has happened so far has changed my mind on that.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
That's the great thing about having McDonnell as chancellor. He's credible when he says he'll crack down on avoidance/evasion.
Giving HMRC the power to knee-cap is one way, I suppose....
There’s only two things that will make a material difference to house prices in London (and house prices being unaffordable is a London and the South East problem), one is a massive house building program and the other a continuing increase in interest rates - neither of which are really issues for the Chancellor. What he could do is allow councils to collect taxes from the date of planning approval rather than the date of project completion, and work with other government departments to release unwanted govt-owned land for development.
The ratio of median earnings to median prices is much higher in all regions comparing 2016 to 1997. London and South East definitely the worst, but East of England and South West not far behind.
Is housing at over 8 times salary really not a problem? Even 6 times seems a bit high to me...
In the North East house prices have actually fallen compared to a decade ago
In Copeland, for example, house prices are only 2.8 times salary
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
I can't see any further cuts to Corporation Tax being offered, unless and until we have a no-deal Brexit, in which case it will be as low as is needed to keep - and then attract business - in the UK.
McDonnell will have to crack down on it to fund his spending plans
McDonnell - a much bigger threat to UK prosperity than Brexit....
1) Journalism is poorly paid out with the big names these days 2) London property is both illiquid and 3) Has an abysmal yield 4) Which implies it is basically capital speculation at this point 5) Even if he could afford to buy his flat he is better off renting.
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
I can't see any further cuts to Corporation Tax being offered, unless and until we have a no-deal Brexit, in which case it will be as low as is needed to keep - and then attract business - in the UK.
McDonnell will have to crack down on it to fund his spending plans
McDonnell - a much bigger threat to UK prosperity than Brexit....
"provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution"
That seems pretty key.
You also seem to assume that there will be a level effect across all parts of the UK economy and geography. That seems far from certain to me.
I agree that the likelihood is there will be no disaster if we get a deal with the EU. But I voted Remain because I believed that leaving would reduce long-term GDP growth, leading to further, sustained cuts in public services and reductions in living standards. Nothing that has happened so far has changed my mind on that.
David is certainly underestimating the disruption costs of Brexit and probably underestimating the long term value of shared systems. The Eurozone, after the initial, and major, disruption is now gradually pulling away from the UK economically. Relative decline is most likely, I think. But we are almost all much richer than we were, including those in relative decline.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
If Brexit happens and causes SERIOUS economic distress it's unlikely Labour will reap any political dividend at all. Corbyn's done nothing but distance himself from day one exemplified by his abject performance at PMQs yesterday.
Come the day of reckoning it won't just be the Tory negotiators and the lumbering Tory Union Jack wavers or the quisling Remainers like May who will be lined up against the wall but also those who allowed it to happen and at the front of that particular queue will be Corbyn.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
"provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution"
That seems pretty key.
You also seem to assume that there will be a level effect across all parts of the UK economy and geography. That seems far from certain to me.
I agree that the likelihood is there will be no disaster if we get a deal with the EU. But I voted Remain because I believed that leaving would reduce long-term GDP growth, leading to further, sustained cuts in public services and reductions in living standards. Nothing that has happened so far has changed my mind on that.
It was a good post by David but the key question is: for what? All that for what?
Why start with power station flue gas containing 15% CO2 when you can start with air containing 400 ppm? Let's make things as thermodynamically difficult as possible. FFS.
Oh, and we already have air capture devices. They are called trees. And they are self-replicating too.
Germany’s Angela Merkel is said to be wary of pushing U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May too hard in Brexit talks for fear it may backfire, as one of her allies came away from a meeting in London more optimistic that a deal can be done.
Chancellery officials in Berlin see a risk that excessive European Union pressure over the Brexit divorce bill could weaken May at home, according to a person familiar with the German position who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. If May were replaced, most of the likeliest successors are hardline Brexit backers.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
"provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution"
That seems pretty key.
You also seem to assume that there will be a level effect across all parts of the UK economy and geography. That seems far from certain to me.
I agree that the likelihood is there will be no disaster if we get a deal with the EU. But I voted Remain because I believed that leaving would reduce long-term GDP growth, leading to further, sustained cuts in public services and reductions in living standards. Nothing that has happened so far has changed my mind on that.
David is certainly underestimating the disruption costs of Brexit and probably underestimating the long term value of shared systems. The Eurozone, after the initial, and major, disruption is now gradually pulling away from the UK economically. Relative decline is most likely, I think. But we are almost all much richer than we were, including those in relative decline.
The same Eurozone which has double our rate of unemployment?
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
"provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution"
That seems pretty key.
You also seem to assume that there will be a level effect across all parts of the UK economy and geography. That seems far from certain to me.
I agree that the likelihood is there will be no disaster if we get a deal with the EU. But I voted Remain because I believed that leaving would reduce long-term GDP growth, leading to further, sustained cuts in public services and reductions in living standards. Nothing that has happened so far has changed my mind on that.
It was a good post by David but the key question is: for what? All that for what?
Droite de Suite?
Self-government, and in the long term, a better relationship with those States that wish to integrate further.
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa).
On topic, why haven't the polls moved ? Why would they ? Nothing has happened yet - we are as much in the EU now as we were on the morning of 23/6/16 albeit the 27 have meetings to which our Prime Minister isn't invited to talk about the future of the EU but that's reasonable.
On the wider point, the EU Referendum was a binary and seemingly binding choice - we leave because we voted to leave. Whether that departure will occur on terms and in ways that will benefit the country remains to be seen but it seems under whatever circumstances we will leave. Nobody knows what will happen so we are left in a holding pattern with only small movements in opinion.
I'm actually quite impressed by aspects of John McDonnell's intervention this morning - I realise the notion of borrowing is anathema to some on here but we've often done it and as the Shadow Chancellor says borrowing when rates are low is much easier than borrowing when rates are high. I've no problem with borrowing to fund capital expenditure on major infrastructure projects - there's a lot that can be done and indeed is being done.
Borrowing to fund public sector pay increases - I'm not so convinced. Yes, many in the public sector have had a raw deal since 2010 and especially in the blue light services there are huge issues with recruitment and retention but the problems are elsewhere. The ring-fencing of parts of the public sector Budget was extraordinarily foolish in my view as was the decision not to clear more of the deficit by tax rises.
There are huge public sector issues out there almost all of which can be traced back to increased demand whether it be for GP services or adult social care.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
You don't think we will control immigration from the EU?
"provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution"
That seems pretty key.
You also seem to assume that there will be a level effect across all parts of the UK economy and geography. That seems far from certain to me.
I agree that the likelihood is there will be no disaster if we get a deal with the EU. But I voted Remain because I believed that leaving would reduce long-term GDP growth, leading to further, sustained cuts in public services and reductions in living standards. Nothing that has happened so far has changed my mind on that.
David is certainly underestimating the disruption costs of Brexit and probably underestimating the long term value of shared systems. The Eurozone, after the initial, and major, disruption is now gradually pulling away from the UK economically. Relative decline is most likely, I think. But we are almost all much richer than we were, including those in relative decline.
The same Eurozone which has double our rate of unemployment?
John McDonnell calls for 'an end to austerity' budget.
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Surely all Govts. in my life-time have wanted to "crack down on tax avoidance"? If they were serious, they would spend more time checking their legislation for loopholes - and then more time moving avoidance --> evasion. Never seems to happen though.
That's the great thing about having McDonnell as chancellor. He's credible when he says he'll crack down on avoidance/evasion.
And how credible do you think he is when he claims that only those earning more than £80k will pay more tax?
That’s an easy one to answer - after five years of inflation and devaluation under McDonnell, £80k will be just above the minimum wage!
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
Well you are clearly wrong on that as the government is ending free movement and replacing it with a points system.
It could only do that with a FTA rather than staying in the single market
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
You don't think we will control immigration from the EU?
In practical terms, probably not. There is conflation between control of immigration and reducing it. So people can point to countries like Australia that are claimed to "control immigration" but nevertheless have higher immigration rates. Leave voters who are uncomfortable with immigrants and think they take jobs, services etc don't think we "control" immigrants even though there are more of them. In a survey voters may place immigration control over international trade, but people making the decisions will do the trade-offs.
Germany’s Angela Merkel is said to be wary of pushing U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May too hard in Brexit talks for fear it may backfire, as one of her allies came away from a meeting in London more optimistic that a deal can be done.
Chancellery officials in Berlin see a risk that excessive European Union pressure over the Brexit divorce bill could weaken May at home, according to a person familiar with the German position who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. If May were replaced, most of the likeliest successors are hardline Brexit backers.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
You don't think we will control immigration from the EU?
In practical terms, probably not. There is conflation between control of immigration and reducing it. So people can point to countries like Australia that are claimed to "control immigration" but nevertheless have higher immigration rates. Leave voters who are uncomfortable with immigrants and think they take jobs, services etc don't think we "control" immigrants even though there are more of them. In a survey voters may place immigration control over international trade, but people making the decisions will do the trade-offs.
Is it really about immigration or is it about controlling the rights, access to free services and financial entitlements of immigrants ?
Germany’s Angela Merkel is said to be wary of pushing U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May too hard in Brexit talks for fear it may backfire, as one of her allies came away from a meeting in London more optimistic that a deal can be done.
Chancellery officials in Berlin see a risk that excessive European Union pressure over the Brexit divorce bill could weaken May at home, according to a person familiar with the German position who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. If May were replaced, most of the likeliest successors are hardline Brexit backers.
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
Why start with power station flue gas containing 15% CO2 when you can start with air containing 400 ppm? Let's make things as thermodynamically difficult as possible. FFS.
Oh, and we already have air capture devices. They are called trees. And they are self-replicating too.
I heard something yesterday (that I cannot repeat, because it was told in confidence regarding ongoing negotiations) that was also a "FFS!" about the ingrained, immoveable aspects of the Civil Service in blocking something which would be massively helpful in reducing CO2 - because it would require them to admit they had been wrong...
Germany’s Angela Merkel is said to be wary of pushing U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May too hard in Brexit talks for fear it may backfire, as one of her allies came away from a meeting in London more optimistic that a deal can be done.
Chancellery officials in Berlin see a risk that excessive European Union pressure over the Brexit divorce bill could weaken May at home, according to a person familiar with the German position who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. If May were replaced, most of the likeliest successors are hardline Brexit backers.
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
I think if he tried that, he would discover how unified the Tory Party can still be....
And the Mob woul be wanting your guitar strings, for a purpose for which they were not originally intended.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer g the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
You don't think we will control immigration from the EU?
In practical terms, probably not. There is conflation between control of immigration and reducing it. So people can point to countries like Australia that are claimed to "control immigration" but nevertheless have higher immigration rates. Leave voters who are uncomfortable with immigrants and think they take jobs, services etc don't think we "control" immigrants even though there are more of them. In a survey voters may place immigration control over international trade, but people making the decisions will do the trade-offs.
Australia has the third lowest population density on earth we have one of the highest
In the North East house prices have actually fallen compared to a decade ago
In Copeland, for example, house prices are only 2.8 times salary
That would be the North West.
And Copeland is very deprived and, I'm afraid to say, an utter dump.
The further North you go the lower the earnings to house price ratio and Copeland has a relatively high median wage for the North boosted by Sellafield
Mr. E, what a ****ing idiot. You would've thought he'd learnt since his NI failure last time.
Cunningly, I'm earning so little it probably wouldn't affect me. But if the threshold fell to, say, zero, I'd just remove all my books from sale (*cough*availableunderthenameThaddeusWhite*cough).
So who benefits? I lose a small sum. The Treasury loses a small sum of tax (VAT on e-books.
There are more self-employed people than ever before. And this would clobber them. And how the hell is it consistent to have a very high personal allowance for income tax and then bring down the VAT threshold?
I've got to be honest, this almost certainly won't affect me. But that doesn't stop me getting annoyed at the bloody idiocy.
There’s only two things that will make a material difference to house prices in London (and house prices being unaffordable is a London and the South East problem), one is a massive house building program and the other a continuing increase in interest rates - neither of which are really issues for the Chancellor. What he could do is allow councils to collect taxes from the date of planning approval rather than the date of project completion, and work with other government departments to release unwanted govt-owned land for development.
The ratio of median earnings to median prices is much higher in all regions comparing 2016 to 1997. London and South East definitely the worst, but East of England and South West not far behind.
Is housing at over 8 times salary really not a problem? Even 6 times seems a bit high to me...
In the North East house prices have actually fallen compared to a decade ago
In Copeland, for example, house prices are only 2.8 times salary
Sure there are outliers but overall across all regions houses have become more unaffordable since 1997. If BoE are placing limits on borrowing at 4.5x salary - then is it wise to have most houses in England at 7.6 times annual salary? I suspect not.
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
Surely your competitors would be in the same position? So the likely outcome is that prices would rise for customers.
Do you think - in your industry - demand would dry up £20>£24 p/h ? What would your current customers do instead of accepting a 20% price rise? Is your industry so marginal/price sensitive?
Do you think we should borrow £50 billion to fund house building as per Javid ?
What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
The problem is the Government, house builders and others conspire to keep land values high and that keeps house prices high which works for so many people (not of course those who can't afford a house but they don't count). Breaking that cycle would be a far more radical thing.
He won't do it - his constituents in Runnymede & Weybridge enjoy some of the highest house prices in the country. They may complain about their children and grandchildren not being able to afford to buy locally but put a plan for 5,000 new homes in the next village on the table and see how well that goes.
You are confusing the destination with the journey.
As it happens, no one has ever made the journey we are attempting, breaking 45 years of ties and institutional and regulatory convergence with so many other countries and our closest trading partners.
Leavers fixate on returning to the pre-70s position and spend very little time considering whether, even if this proves beneficial as they believe, the size of the eventual prize (in real rather than ideological terms) justifies the cost of and damage from making what will probably be a very uncomfortable transition.
What balderdash.
Like no empire or country has split apart in the last hundred years.
Fall of the berlin wall and the consequent splitting of the soviet union? The empires torn apart by the after effects of both World Wars? Yugoslavia splitting? Czechoslovakia?
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer these adverse effects at all, however minor. I even get the argument that we might have better growth opportunities in the future inside the SM although the evidence for that is weak. But those who try to paint this as the end of the world (or indeed a fabulous new opportunity) are seriously overstating the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
You don't think we will control immigration from the EU?
In practical terms, probably not. There is conflation between control of immigration and reducing it. So people can point to countries like Australia that are claimed to "control immigration" but nevertheless have higher immigration rates. Leave voters who are uncomfortable with immigrants and think they take jobs, services etc don't think we "control" immigrants even though there are more of them. In a survey voters may place immigration control over international trade, but people making the decisions will do the trade-offs.
Is it really about immigration or is it about controlling the rights, access to free services and financial entitlements of immigrants ?
You are probably right. Those are mostly not required for SIngle Market access and aren't all required with membership of the EU however.
So the EU says, this is how we do it. Do we say, Yes? I believe we will.
There’s only two things that will make a material difference to house prices in London (and house prices being unaffordable is a London and the South East problem), one is a massive house building program and the other a continuing increase in interest rates - neither of which are really issues for the Chancellor. What he could do is allow councils to collect taxes from the date of planning approval rather than the date of project completion, and work with other government departments to release unwanted govt-owned land for development.
The ratio of median earnings to median prices is much higher in all regions comparing 2016 to 1997. London and South East definitely the worst, but East of England and South West not far behind.
Is housing at over 8 times salary really not a problem? Even 6 times seems a bit high to me...
In the North East house prices have actually fallen compared to a decade ago
In Copeland, for example, house prices are only 2.8 times salary
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
Do you think we should borrow £50 billion to fund house building as per Javid ?
What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
The problem is the Government, house builders and others conspire to keep land values high and that keeps house prices high which works for so many people (not of course those who can't afford a house but they don't count). Breaking that cycle would be a far more radical thing.
He won't do it - his constituents in Runnymede & Weybridge enjoy some of the highest house prices in the country. They may complain about their children and grandchildren not being able to afford to buy locally but put a plan for 5,000 new homes in the next village on the table and see how well that goes.
Precisely. Let’s see what Hammond goes for though - give him the benefit of the doubt.
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
Surely your competitors would be in the same position? So the likely outcome is that prices would rise for customers.
Do you think - in your industry - demand would dry up £20>£24 p/h ? What would your current customers do instead of accepting a 20% price rise? Is your industry so marginal/price sensitive?
In the North East house prices have actually fallen compared to a decade ago
In Copeland, for example, house prices are only 2.8 times salary
That would be the North West.
And Copeland is very deprived and, I'm afraid to say, an utter dump.
The further North you go the lower the earnings to house price ratio and Copeland has a relatively high median wage for the North boosted by Sellafield
Indeed. Getting qualified people to live in a shithole means you have to pay them well. Look at the salaries paid by oil companies to their overseas employees.
You also seem to have explained why Copeland is an exception, rather than an exemplar.
There’s only two things that will make a material difference to house prices in London (and house prices being unaffordable is a London and the South East problem), one is a massive house building program and the other a continuing increase in interest rates - neither of which are really issues for the Chancellor. What he could do is allow councils to collect taxes from the date of planning approval rather than the date of project completion, and work with other government departments to release unwanted govt-owned land for development.
The ratio of median earnings to median prices is much higher in all regions comparing 2016 to 1997. London and South East definitely the worst, but East of England and South West not far behind.
Is housing at over 8 times salary really not a problem? Even 6 times seems a bit high to me...
In the North East house prices have actually fallen compared to a decade ago
In Copeland, for example, house prices are only 2.8 times salary
But still much more than they were in 1997.
In the North the earnings to house price ratio has only increased from about 2.5 to 4.5 since 1997 compared to from about 4 to 12 in London.
Mr. E, what a ****ing idiot. You would've thought he'd learnt since his NI failure last time.
The proposed NI change was quite right, the 'structure above' for ones income should not affect the revenue heading to the treasury. Was quite pathetic how the Tories backed down on that. I agree this VAT change is absolute mince though.
Australia has the third lowest population density on earth we have one of the highest
But Australia has a massive central area that is uninhabitable unless you are born to it, or an outlaw. The coastal strip is still substantial, but really only a small fraction of Aus. I suspect Saudi Arabia looks similar, once you exclude the Empty Quarter.
Mr. E, what a ****ing idiot. You would've thought he'd learnt since his NI failure last time.
Cunningly, I'm earning so little it probably wouldn't affect me. But if the threshold fell to, say, zero, I'd just remove all my books from sale (*cough*availableunderthenameThaddeusWhite*cough).
So who benefits? I lose a small sum. The Treasury loses a small sum of tax (VAT on e-books.
There are more self-employed people than ever before. And this would clobber them. And how the hell is it consistent to have a very high personal allowance for income tax and then bring down the VAT threshold?
I've got to be honest, this almost certainly won't affect me. But that doesn't stop me getting annoyed at the bloody idiocy.
The Telegraph reports that the commission asked to look at VAT, had one of its recommendations that £20K should be the new threshold. The issue they picked up is that the current £85K threshold is acting as a limiter to growth (businesses are turning away work to stay below the £85K).
They consider businesses below the new possible £20K limit to be "hobbies".
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
Surely your competitors would be in the same position? So the likely outcome is that prices would rise for customers.
Do you think - in your industry - demand would dry up £20>£24 p/h ? What would your current customers do instead of accepting a 20% price rise? Is your industry so marginal/price sensitive?
Genuine questions.
TonyE may well correct me here (and apologies for this presumptuous post!), but I suspect that most of his week's work goes to meet his cost of living. Perhaps 10%* of income is able to be saved. A drop of just 10% in work, therefore, leaves him with sweet FA at the end of the week, and balanced on a knife-edge.
It doesn't have to destroy his business completely to make it fail, just push it enough.
Moving to cash-in-hand would solve it. But now he's operating illegally and the government has nothing at all.
*complete guess, but you get the idea I'm trying to convey.
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
There was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
You are confusing the destination with the journey.
As it happens, no one has ever made the journey we are attempting, breaking 45 years of ties and institutional and regulatory convergence with so many other countries and our closest trading partners.
Leavers fixate on returning to the pre-70s position and spend very little time considering whether, even if this proves beneficial as they believe, the size of the eventual prize (in real rather than ideological terms) justifies the cost of and damage from making what will probably be a very uncomfortable transition.
What balderdash.
Like no empire or country has split apart in the last hundred years.
Fall of the berlin wall and the consequent splitting of the soviet union? The empires torn apart by the after effects of both World Wars? Yugoslavia splitting? Czechoslovakia?
Would you support a 1p rise in income tax to help fund enhanced border control and security ?
What has that got to with anything. Even with free movement you still have to pass through border control just without so many checks.
Back in the real world, the end of FoM is going to have impacts - people will still try to come here, there will be people smuggling as we've already seen (the actual numbers of people from Romania and Bulgaria and other countries is likely much higher than the official figures),there may be new jungles on the other side of the Channel and the possibility of people getting in illegally and living below the radar in terrible conditions as virtual slaves (it happens now under FoM).
The truth is there will need to be a considerable expansion in both the UK Border Agency and perhaps the HMRC as well - I'm merely asking you, as a Government supporter, how that should be funded.
Mr. E, what a ****ing idiot. You would've thought he'd learnt since his NI failure last time.
The proposed NI change was quite right, the 'structure above' for ones income should not affect the revenue heading to the treasury. Was quite pathetic how the Tories backed down on that. I agree this VAT change is absolute mince though.
The NI proposal was sensible, the backing down on it was because of the manifesto commitment. I’m expecting to see the same proposal resurrected next week.
I can see why those advocating the VAT threshold want to change it, as there are a growing number of small businesses and a need to maintain tax receipts - but they’ve clearly never been small businessmen or women, for whom every hour they’re doing paperwork is an hour they’re not earning money, and who would also feel the costs of a 20% rise in their prices to domestic customers.
Do you think we should borrow £50 billion to fund house building as per Javid ?
What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
The problem is the Government, house builders and others conspire to keep land values high and that keeps house prices high which works for so many people (not of course those who can't afford a house but they don't count). Breaking that cycle would be a far more radical thing.
He won't do it - his constituents in Runnymede & Weybridge enjoy some of the highest house prices in the country. They may complain about their children and grandchildren not being able to afford to buy locally but put a plan for 5,000 new homes in the next village on the table and see how well that goes.
I'd rather he spent £50Bn on infrastructure and let the houses build themselves if the conditions are right.
Needs a massive restructuring of home ownership - carrots for owner/occupiers and bigger sticks for buy to let/2nd home owners and land bank hoggers.
Just building more home for foreign investors to rent out isn't the answer.
Australia has the third lowest population density on earth we have one of the highest
But Australia has a massive central area that is uninhabitable unless you are born to it, or an outlaw. The coastal strip is still substantial, but really only a small fraction of Aus. I suspect Saudi Arabia looks similar, once you exclude the Empty Quarter.
You're right on Saudi, but Australia has ALOT of arable land, pretty much twice the total area of the UK. Of course most of it is uninhabitable, but there is alot that is habitable..
Would you support a 1p rise in income tax to help fund enhanced border control and security ?
What has that got to with anything. Even with free movement you still have to pass through border control just without so many checks.
Back in the real world, the end of FoM is going to have impacts - people will still try to come here, there will be people smuggling as we've already seen (the actual numbers of people from Romania and Bulgaria and other countries is likely much higher than the official figures),there may be new jungles on the other side of the Channel and the possibility of people getting in illegally and living below the radar in terrible conditions as virtual slaves (it happens now under FoM).
The truth is there will need to be a considerable expansion in both the UK Border Agency and perhaps the HMRC as well - I'm merely asking you, as a Government supporter, how that should be funded.
“Free movement” in the EU sense means something very specific - it refers to the issuance of NI numbers and entitlement to state benefits and services such as health and education.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with checking passports at borders.
Mr. E, what a ****ing idiot. You would've thought he'd learnt since his NI failure last time.
The proposed NI change was quite right, the 'structure above' for ones income should not affect the revenue heading to the treasury. Was quite pathetic how the Tories backed down on that. I agree this VAT change is absolute mince though.
The NI proposal was sensible, the backing down on it was because of the manifesto commitment. I’m expecting to see the same proposal resurrected next week.
I can see why those advocating the VAT threshold want to change it, as there are a growing number of small businesses and a need to maintain tax receipts - but they’ve clearly never been small businessmen or women, for whom every hour they’re doing paperwork is an hour they’re not earning money, and who would also feel the costs of a 20% rise in their prices to domestic customers.
Hammond may compound this potential clusterf because I gather that there are plans to scrap and/or limit the VAT flat rate scheme - which saves bundles of time and paperwork. Indeed, having done VAT with this system it is pretty straightforward and can in fact mean a small business is slightly ahead on the deal (depending on various factors).
You are confusing the destination with the journey.
As it happens, no one has ever made the journey we are attempting, breaking 45 years of ties and institutional and regulatory convergence with so many other countries and our closest trading partners.
Leavers fixate on returning to the pre-70s position and spend very little time considering whether, even if this proves beneficial as they believe, the size of the eventual prize (in real rather than ideological terms) justifies the cost of and damage from making what will probably be a very uncomfortable transition.
What balderdash.
Like no empire or country has split apart in the last hundred years.
Fall of the berlin wall and the consequent splitting of the soviet union? The empires torn apart by the after effects of both World Wars? Yugoslavia splitting? Czechoslovakia?
Stuff happens people survive and get over it.
The breakup of Yugoslavia is probably not an experience we would wish to repeat in the UK.
In general the breakup of empires is a political process - it does not automatically change economic relationships between provinces as they become politically independent.
Brexit is primarily an economic process - it will profoundly change the economic relationship between the UK and its major trading partners.
The reason (As Ian points out downthread) that the VAT change could be so damaging is it forces prices up by 20%. With an NI change, that affects income already banked so to speak.
Comments
He wants to crack down on tax avoidance, no cuts to corporation tax, a pause in UC and more borrowing to fund public sector pay rises, more money for local government, health and education and investment in infrastructure and a house building programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41999993
Max Verstappen, a much easier prediction than politics.
In political terms, you may be right that a loss of growth of the magnitude you predict could be swallowed if the economy is otherwise growing. But it seems to me that the reverse position is more likely, given that the global economy is precariously positioned and overdue for a correction. There will surely be a political price for worsening our position during a downturn.
The quote from the Conservative Minister:
"Labour always take it too far...."
Suggests they are also coming round to this logic.
Very interested to see what Hammond is going to do on housing.
Rumours that he was going to cut stamp duty - which has been tried before - and I think would be seen as grossly inadequate.
We might even have a King.
Not borrowing to invest, when demand for housing is high, the economy is in the doldrums and global capital is begging for something safe to invest in was (and is) economic insanity.
These tories are fools.
Even if the Brexit negotiations go badly wrong, I don’t see a GE before October or thereabouts next year.
I can't see any further cuts to Corporation Tax being offered, unless and until we have a no-deal Brexit, in which case it will be as low as is needed to keep - and then attract business - in the UK.
Conservatives - closed loophole & businesses shut down, throwing several hundred out of jobs.
That’s not something I often think when reading your posts!!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/17/average-house-price-times-annual-salary-official-figures-ons
The ratio of median earnings to median prices is much higher in all regions comparing 2016 to 1997. London and South East definitely the worst, but East of England and South West not far behind.
Is housing at over 8 times salary really not a problem? Even 6 times seems a bit high to me...
Come the day of reckoning it won't just be the Tory negotiators and the lumbering Tory Union Jack wavers or the quisling Remainers like May who will be lined up against the wall but also those who allowed it to happen and at the front of that particular queue will be Corbyn.
My international comparator is Japan, a well populated island, aloof from an economically more important neighbour. Japan has had a couple of "lost decades" since the rise of China, where it has been seen to underperform. Japan has actually done OK for decades that are supposedly lost. It has decent employment rates and world class businesses. So basically I agree with your summary.
But - and this is a big but - in practice I don't think we will ever be free from the EU. They own the international system and we will accommodate ourselves to it. The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one. Unless "taking control" means voluntarily agreeing to do what we are told. We did better than that as members. People who voted Leave because they don't like the EU much and wish it would go away will be disappointed to find the EU dominating our lives far more outside than in.
Then there's the question of whether it is worth the disruption. But there we go ...
That seems pretty key.
You also seem to assume that there will be a level effect across all parts of the UK economy and geography. That seems far from certain to me.
I agree that the likelihood is there will be no disaster if we get a deal with the EU. But I voted Remain because I believed that leaving would reduce long-term GDP growth, leading to further, sustained cuts in public services and reductions in living standards. Nothing that has happened so far has changed my mind on that.
In Copeland, for example, house prices are only 2.8 times salary
1) Journalism is poorly paid out with the big names these days
2) London property is both illiquid and
3) Has an abysmal yield
4) Which implies it is basically capital speculation at this point
5) Even if he could afford to buy his flat he is better off renting.
Droite de Suite?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41816332
Why start with power station flue gas containing 15% CO2 when you can start with air containing 400 ppm? Let's make things as thermodynamically difficult as possible. FFS.
Oh, and we already have air capture devices. They are called trees. And they are self-replicating too.
Germany’s Angela Merkel is said to be wary of pushing U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May too hard in Brexit talks for fear it may backfire, as one of her allies came away from a meeting in London more optimistic that a deal can be done.
Chancellery officials in Berlin see a risk that excessive European Union pressure over the Brexit divorce bill could weaken May at home, according to a person familiar with the German position who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. If May were replaced, most of the likeliest successors are hardline Brexit backers.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-15/merkel-said-to-be-wary-of-hurting-may-as-german-hawk-backs-u-k
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa).
On topic, why haven't the polls moved ? Why would they ? Nothing has happened yet - we are as much in the EU now as we were on the morning of 23/6/16 albeit the 27 have meetings to which our Prime Minister isn't invited to talk about the future of the EU but that's reasonable.
On the wider point, the EU Referendum was a binary and seemingly binding choice - we leave because we voted to leave. Whether that departure will occur on terms and in ways that will benefit the country remains to be seen but it seems under whatever circumstances we will leave. Nobody knows what will happen so we are left in a holding pattern with only small movements in opinion.
I'm actually quite impressed by aspects of John McDonnell's intervention this morning - I realise the notion of borrowing is anathema to some on here but we've often done it and as the Shadow Chancellor says borrowing when rates are low is much easier than borrowing when rates are high. I've no problem with borrowing to fund capital expenditure on major infrastructure projects - there's a lot that can be done and indeed is being done.
Borrowing to fund public sector pay increases - I'm not so convinced. Yes, many in the public sector have had a raw deal since 2010 and especially in the blue light services there are huge issues with recruitment and retention but the problems are elsewhere. The ring-fencing of parts of the public sector Budget was extraordinarily foolish in my view as was the decision not to clear more of the deficit by tax rises.
There are huge public sector issues out there almost all of which can be traced back to increased demand whether it be for GP services or adult social care.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-42006668
But not suspended.
It could only do that with a FTA rather than staying in the single market
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/16/budget-philip-hammonds-last-chance-radical-go-history-do-nothing/
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+
So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
And the Mob woul be wanting your guitar strings, for a purpose for which they were not originally intended.
And Copeland is very deprived and, I'm afraid to say, an utter dump.
Cunningly, I'm earning so little it probably wouldn't affect me. But if the threshold fell to, say, zero, I'd just remove all my books from sale (*cough*availableunderthenameThaddeusWhite*cough).
So who benefits? I lose a small sum. The Treasury loses a small sum of tax (VAT on e-books.
There are more self-employed people than ever before. And this would clobber them. And how the hell is it consistent to have a very high personal allowance for income tax and then bring down the VAT threshold?
I've got to be honest, this almost certainly won't affect me. But that doesn't stop me getting annoyed at the bloody idiocy.
If BoE are placing limits on borrowing at 4.5x salary - then is it wise to have most houses in England at 7.6 times annual salary?
I suspect not.
Do you think - in your industry - demand would dry up £20>£24 p/h ? What would your current customers do instead of accepting a 20% price rise? Is your industry so marginal/price sensitive?
Genuine questions.
What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
The problem is the Government, house builders and others conspire to keep land values high and that keeps house prices high which works for so many people (not of course those who can't afford a house but they don't count). Breaking that cycle would be a far more radical thing.
He won't do it - his constituents in Runnymede & Weybridge enjoy some of the highest house prices in the country. They may complain about their children and grandchildren not being able to afford to buy locally but put a plan for 5,000 new homes in the next village on the table and see how well that goes.
Like no empire or country has split apart in the last hundred years.
Fall of the berlin wall and the consequent splitting of the soviet union?
The empires torn apart by the after effects of both World Wars?
Yugoslavia splitting?
Czechoslovakia?
Stuff happens people survive and get over it.
So the EU says, this is how we do it. Do we say, Yes? I believe we will.
Let’s see what Hammond goes for though - give him the benefit of the doubt.
You also seem to have explained why Copeland is an exception, rather than an exemplar.
I agree this VAT change is absolute mince though.
They consider businesses below the new possible £20K limit to be "hobbies".
It doesn't have to destroy his business completely to make it fail, just push it enough.
Moving to cash-in-hand would solve it. But now he's operating illegally and the government has nothing at all.
*complete guess, but you get the idea I'm trying to convey.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
Back in the real world, the end of FoM is going to have impacts - people will still try to come here, there will be people smuggling as we've already seen (the actual numbers of people from Romania and Bulgaria and other countries is likely much higher than the official figures),there may be new jungles on the other side of the Channel and the possibility of people getting in illegally and living below the radar in terrible conditions as virtual slaves (it happens now under FoM).
The truth is there will need to be a considerable expansion in both the UK Border Agency and perhaps the HMRC as well - I'm merely asking you, as a Government supporter, how that should be funded.
I can see why those advocating the VAT threshold want to change it, as there are a growing number of small businesses and a need to maintain tax receipts - but they’ve clearly never been small businessmen or women, for whom every hour they’re doing paperwork is an hour they’re not earning money, and who would also feel the costs of a 20% rise in their prices to domestic customers.
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Needs a massive restructuring of home ownership - carrots for owner/occupiers and bigger sticks for buy to let/2nd home owners and land bank hoggers.
Just building more home for foreign investors to rent out isn't the answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country
It has nothing whatsoever to do with checking passports at borders.
In general the breakup of empires is a political process - it does not automatically change economic relationships between provinces as they become politically independent.
Brexit is primarily an economic process - it will profoundly change the economic relationship between the UK and its major trading partners.