So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May and Hammond out and a PM/CotE who can present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
Absolutely! The markets have clearly factored in the eventuality of Brexit being bogus and why not: no mainstream politician would risk a real Brexit as the consequences would be unthinkable. Okay, we'll relinquish our voting rights and will become a vassal state but hey ho. And yes - boot out May and Hammond. They've long outlived their usefulness. Get Boris and Rees-Mogg in there as a dream ticket and the entertainment can really begin.
Our sales for my medtech company are up 20% so far this year based on large international demand. We took the decision last year to move away from the NHS as our main customer. The low pound has had more impact than Brexit. In the end we have decided to remain under European regulatory control This we can do by moving our HQ to Ireland. If and when there is a new British system we may join it.
Good news for our staff I guess but does the UK Government benefit by becoming less and less relevant. Who knows. One of the side benefits of all the changes is that we have more options now to cut our taxes which again is good news for us but maybe not for Corbyn. By the time Labour gets in the UK corporate sector will be so mobile that any attempt to try punishing taxes will be impossible.
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May, Hammond and Carney out and a PM/CotE/Governor of the Bank of England who can actually present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
The public experiences the economy. The numbers and how they are presented mean absolutely nothing.
Exactly......the Soviet Union spouted reams of successful data and look where that got them.
Meanwhile people live in the real world where they cannot get to see a GP, and walk past endless sleeping bags housing rough sleepers in their town centres. If Labour has a less polarising leader?? That said, May's hubris about Corbyn led to this present state of a governing party with absolutely no power, one which I am rather enjoying to be honest.
For me the very best thing about GE 2017 was the immediate realisation that the Tory rightwing ideological dream of an unregulated economy operating outside the EU was dead in the water.
Fake news. Never mind Brexit -- that Bloomberg graph says that after the global meltdown, Britain returned to growth under Labour. Surely that can't be right???
Isn’t it amazing how you can get growth by borrowing £160bn a year and printing £250bn more?
Keynes might have had a point and the austerity hawks learned nothing from the 1930s?
Keynes was right, but his thinking requires the running of a surplus during the good times. That was Brown’s failure to prepare for the crash, because he thought he could abolish the economic cycle.
Someone didn't fix the roof while the sun was shining...
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May and Hammond out and a PM/CotE who can present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
Absolutely! The markets have clearly factored in the eventuality of Brexit being bogus and why not: no mainstream politician would risk a real Brexit as the consequences would be unthinkable. Okay, we'll relinquish our voting rights and will become a vassal state but hey ho. And yes - boot out May and Hammond. They've long outlived their usefulness. Get Boris and Rees-Mogg in there as a dream ticket and the entertainment can really begin.
Our sales for my medtech company are up 20% so far this year based on large international demand. We took the decision last year to move away from the NHS as our main customer. The low pound has had more impact than Brexit. In the end we have decided to remain under European regulatory control This we can do by moving our HQ to Ireland. If and when there is a new British system we may join it.
Good news for our staff I guess but does the UK Government benefit by becoming less and less relevant. Who knows. One of the side benefits of all the changes is that we have more options now to cut our taxes which again is good news for us but maybe not for Corbyn. By the time Labour gets in the UK corporate sector will be so mobile that any attempt to try punishing taxes will be impossible.
Mr. Sandpit, Labour's Keynesian claims were always bullshit precisely because of that. Labour supported spending more than the economy could bear, always running a deficit. They cite Keynes' spending notion during a decline but utterly ignored (indeed, did the opposite) the surplus during the good times.
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May, Hammond and Carney out and a PM/CotE/Governor of the Bank of England who can actually present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
The public experiences the economy. The numbers and how they are presented mean absolutely nothing.
That's a good one. Almost HumptyDumpty-ish: a statistic means what I want it to mean.
Don't you remember: "“That’s your bloody GDP. Not ours.”?
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May and Hammond out and a PM/CotE who can present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
Absolutely! The markets have clearly factored in the eventuality of Brexit being bogus and why not: no mainstream politician would risk a real Brexit as the consequences would be unthinkable. Okay, we'll relinquish our voting rights and will become a vassal state but hey ho. And yes - boot out May and Hammond. They've long outlived their usefulness. Get Boris and Rees-Mogg in there as a dream ticket and the entertainment can really begin.
The Tories are particularly keffuckered regarding their leadership. A Rees Mogg or Boris Premiership will not hold any kind of majority in the HoC let alone the Lords as Remain Tories align themselves with the opposition to stop a hard Brexit. A hard Brexit almost certainly relies on the authority of a second referendum to get over the conundrum that a majority of the HoC are opposed to it.
I suspect Boris's hard-Brexit rhetoric is purely for manoeuvrings within the Tory party. If becoming a vassal state meant Boris got the top job and had an easy time of it then he'd be more than content. Rees-Mogg, in contrast, might actually care, but if the economy is ticking over nicely then his complaints will just seem arcane.
Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
Less important to France and Germany and other European countries as a weight inside the EU.
Less important to the US for the same reason - because less able to influence inside the US’s main rival for trade and financial rule setting.
Less important to China - no longer a voice inside their main export market.
And, to all nations, we are no longer a reliable and stable route into a wealthy market of 500 million people.
And frankly, with Brexit the only show in town, we’re less able to manage an active foreign (and seemingly domestic) policy.
Britain’s global power has of course been in decline for a 100 years. We gave up pretending to be a superpower after Suez, and the 60s and 70s were all about retrenchment.
Thatcher, then Blair, arrested and reversed our decline. We were powerful players in the end of the Cold War, in the establishment of the single market, in the end of apartheid, and in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.
Then, downhill.
Iraq destroyed our credibility. The global financial crisis removed our means. But Brexit is the final nail in the coffin. It’s a retreat not just from a global role, but from a regional one.
I will continue to be surprised that the Brexiters - who tend to be Conservatives - and therefore traditionally proud and protective of Britain’s global power - are so sanguine about its rapid decline.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
So does that mean that British lives and money no longer need to be wasted on foreign wars ?
And I guess that means we no longer need to be an 'Aid Superpower' and so can save ourselves another ten billion a year.
Many on this board welcome that.
Names?
You really shouldn't believe what Remainers write about Brexiters......
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May and Hammond out and a PM/CotE who can present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
Absolutely! The markets have clearly factored in the eventuality of Brexit being bogus and why not: no mainstream politician would risk a real Brexit as the consequences would be unthinkable. Okay, we'll relinquish our voting rights and will become a vassal state but hey ho. And yes - boot out May and Hammond. They've long outlived their usefulness. Get Boris and Rees-Mogg in there as a dream ticket and the entertainment can really begin.
Our sales for my medtech company are up 20% so far this year based on large international demand. We took the decision last year to move away from the NHS as our main customer. The low pound has had more impact than Brexit. In the end we have decided to remain under European regulatory control This we can do by moving our HQ to Ireland. If and when there is a new British system we may join it.
Good news for our staff I guess but does the UK Government benefit by becoming less and less relevant. Who knows. One of the side benefits of all the changes is that we have more options now to cut our taxes which again is good news for us but maybe not for Corbyn. By the time Labour gets in the UK corporate sector will be so mobile that any attempt to try punishing taxes will be impossible.
Good to hear your company is doing well, and long may that be the case.
Your last point is the one that sticks. Companies and those that run them now think much more regionally and globally when it comes to location and jurisdiction, it’s one of the reasons we are keen to get a good deal as we leave the EU.
It’s also, as you say, now increasingly difficult for a Corbyn to raise anywhere like the amount in taxes from businesses and wealthy individuals that he thinks he can and jurisdiction shopping is only going to become more commonplace. Luckily as we leave the EU we will regain our seat at the WTO where the necessary discussions on these issues will take place at a global level.
Mr. Sandpit, Labour's Keynesian claims were always bullshit precisely because of that. Labour supported spending more than the economy could bear, always running a deficit. They cite Keynes' spending notion during a decline but utterly ignored (indeed, did the opposite) the surplus during the good times.
The last chancellor to run a surplus was, erm, Gordon something-or-other. I'd imagine he is also the last Chancellor to reduce the national debt, though I've not checked. In fact, Labour has run more surpluses than Conservatives.
Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
Less important to France and Germany and other European countries as a weight inside the EU.
Less important to the US for the same reason - because less able to influence inside the US’s main rival for trade and financial rule setting.
Less important to China - no longer a voice inside their main export market.
And, to all nations, we are no longer a reliable and stable route into a wealthy market of 500 million people.
And frankly, with Brexit the only show in town, we’re less able to manage an active foreign (and seemingly domestic) policy.
Britain’s global power has of course been in decline for a 100 years. We gave up pretending to be a superpower after Suez, and the 60s and 70s were all about retrenchment.
Thatcher, then Blair, arrested and reversed our decline. We were powerful players in the end of the Cold War, in the establishment of the single market, in the end of apartheid, and in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.
Then, downhill.
Iraq destroyed our credibility. The global financial crisis removed our means. But Brexit is the final nail in the coffin. It’s a retreat not just from a global role, but from a regional one.
I will continue to be surprised that the Brexiters - who tend to be Conservatives - and therefore traditionally proud and protective of Britain’s global power - are so sanguine about its rapid decline.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
So does that mean that British lives and money no longer need to be wasted on foreign wars ?
And I guess that means we no longer need to be an 'Aid Superpower' and so can save ourselves another ten billion a year.
Many on this board welcome that.
Names?
You really shouldn't believe what Remainers write about Brexiters......
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May and Hammond out and a PM/CotE who can present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
Absolutely! The markets have clearly factored in the eventuality of Brexit being bogus and why not: no mainstream politician would risk a real Brexit as the consequences would be unthinkable. Okay, we'll relinquish our voting rights and will become a vassal state but hey ho. And yes - boot out May and Hammond. They've long outlived their usefulness. Get Boris and Rees-Mogg in there as a dream ticket and the entertainment can really begin.
Our sales for my medtech company are up 20% so far this year based on large international demand. We took the decision last year to move away from the NHS as our main customer. The low pound has had more impact than Brexit. In the end we have decided to remain under European regulatory control This we can do by moving our HQ to Ireland. If and when there is a new British system we may join it.
Good news for our staff I guess but does the UK Government benefit by becoming less and less relevant. Who knows. One of the side benefits of all the changes is that we have more options now to cut our taxes which again is good news for us but maybe not for Corbyn. By the time Labour gets in the UK corporate sector will be so mobile that any attempt to try punishing taxes will be impossible.
Good to hear your company is doing well, and long may that be the case.
Your last point is the one that sticks. Companies and those that run them now think much more regionally and globally when it comes to location and jurisdiction, it’s one of the reasons we are keen to get a good deal as we leave the EU.
It’s also, as you say, now increasingly difficult for a Corbyn to raise anywhere like the amount in taxes from businesses and wealthy individuals that he thinks he can and jurisdiction shopping is only going to become more commonplace. Luckily as we leave the EU we will regain our seat at the WTO where the necessary discussions on these issues will take place at a global level.
What do you think Britain can do by itself at the WTO? This is one of the mystical pieces of nonsense that Brexiters spout that doesn't even have a residue of logic to it.
Mr. Tyson, are you suggesting the statistics gathered in the UK are effectively as trustworthy (ie not very) as those of the Soviet Union?
It's not so much trustworthy as they're aggregate. I posted a link to regional GDP downthread. Northern Ireland's economy still hasn't recovered to pre-crash levels.
Inflation is measured on a weighted basket of goods & services that might not reflect your personal rate of inflation (e.g. hotels and restaurants make up 12.3% of the basket, while food & beverages make up 10.3%, which if you're poor is a nonsense).
Locally, we had a homeless man freeze to death just after Christmas. Still, I'm sure he'd have been cheered by our stellar services performance in Q4.
UK growth saw a slightly better-than-expected 0.5% rise for the last three months of 2017, official figures say.
Economists had expected a 0.4% expansion in the three months to December.
However, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the annual picture remained "slower and more uneven".
In 2017 as a whole, growth was 1.8% compared with 1.9% in 2016, the slowest since 2012, the ONS said.
The desperate attempt to make the figure downbeat on the basis of a 0.1% fall in the rate of growth which will almost certainly be revised away in due course would be laughable if it was not so sad.
Which option preserves the unity of the Conservative party?
That is a fair point!!
May's dilemma is that she knows that a soft Brexit is the only viable option due to the HoC arithmetics, but this does not go down well with the Moggster's swivel eyed brigade who can potentially bring her down. So, she has to give an indication that she is pursuing a hard Brexit. The Tory party is split and faces the same logistics as the Labour Party...discord between large sections of the Parliamentary party and the membership. The Tory party though has a more effective system though of stopping the loons being put to the leadership mind.
I must say I'm sympathetic with the view that a soft Brexit isn't something that people voted for. It isn't one thing or the other.
Mr. Sandpit, Labour's Keynesian claims were always bullshit precisely because of that. Labour supported spending more than the economy could bear, always running a deficit. They cite Keynes' spending notion during a decline but utterly ignored (indeed, did the opposite) the surplus during the good times.
The last chancellor to run a surplus was, erm, Gordon something-or-other. I'd imagine he is also the last Chancellor to reduce the national debt, though I've not checked. In fact, Labour has run more surpluses than Conservatives.
And the current government has been running with a significant deficit during a period of economic growth.
Absolutely! The markets have clearly factored in the eventuality of Brexit being bogus and why not: no mainstream politician would risk a real Brexit as the consequences would be unthinkable. Okay, we'll relinquish our voting rights and will become a vassal state but hey ho. And yes - boot out May and Hammond. They've long outlived their usefulness. Get Boris and Rees-Mogg in there as a dream ticket and the entertainment can really begin.
Our sales for my medtech company are up 20% so far this year based on large international demand. We took the decision last year to move away from the NHS as our main customer. The low pound has had more impact than Brexit. In the end we have decided to remain under European regulatory control This we can do by moving our HQ to Ireland. If and when there is a new British system we may join it.
Good news for our staff I guess but does the UK Government benefit by becoming less and less relevant. Who knows. One of the side benefits of all the changes is that we have more options now to cut our taxes which again is good news for us but maybe not for Corbyn. By the time Labour gets in the UK corporate sector will be so mobile that any attempt to try punishing taxes will be impossible.
Good to hear your company is doing well, and long may that be the case.
Your last point is the one that sticks. Companies and those that run them now think much more regionally and globally when it comes to location and jurisdiction, it’s one of the reasons we are keen to get a good deal as we leave the EU.
It’s also, as you say, now increasingly difficult for a Corbyn to raise anywhere like the amount in taxes from businesses and wealthy individuals that he thinks he can and jurisdiction shopping is only going to become more commonplace. Luckily as we leave the EU we will regain our seat at the WTO where the necessary discussions on these issues will take place at a global level.
What do you think Britain can do by itself at the WTO? This is one of the mystical pieces of nonsense that Brexiters spout that doesn't even have a residue of logic to it.
I’d much rather see a British representative at the WTO, standing up for (as an example) financial services trade and looking after other British interests, rather than surrender our opinion to an EU delegate with their own agenda of bashing American tech companies and preserving agricultural tariffs.
Mr. Sandpit, Labour's Keynesian claims were always bullshit precisely because of that. Labour supported spending more than the economy could bear, always running a deficit. They cite Keynes' spending notion during a decline but utterly ignored (indeed, did the opposite) the surplus during the good times.
The last chancellor to run a surplus was, erm, Gordon something-or-other. I'd imagine he is also the last Chancellor to reduce the national debt, though I've not checked. In fact, Labour has run more surpluses than Conservatives.
If Gordon Brown was a tenth as good as you seem to think he was, he'd still be Prime Minister....
The guy plundered everything he could in the name of short-termism. We are still living with the consequences of his awful stewardship of the economy.
Fake news. Never mind Brexit -- that Bloomberg graph says that after the global meltdown, Britain returned to growth under Labour. Surely that can't be right???
Isn’t it amazing how you can get growth by borrowing £160bn a year and printing £250bn more?
Keynes might have had a point and the austerity hawks learned nothing from the 1930s?
Keynes was right, but his thinking requires the running of a surplus during the good times. That was Brown’s failure to prepare for the crash, because he thought he could abolish the economic cycle.
The crash had sod all to do with the economic cycle, and it is not really clear what could have been done. Much of our problem was that the City dominated the economy but it would have been stupid to rebalance by destroying that, and there is not much to be done about natural resources. If only we could -- Australia and Canada did very well through the crisis. We need to learn from Germany, China, the United States and so on about how to support industry but there is no great appetite for that from either party. Much of our industry is foreign-owned: why are foreign managers better than home-grown ones?
Which option preserves the unity of the Conservative party?
That is a fair point!!
May's dilemma is that she knows that a soft Brexit is the only viable option due to the HoC arithmetics, but this does not go down well with the Moggster's swivel eyed brigade who can potentially bring her down. So, she has to give an indication that she is pursuing a hard Brexit. The Tory party is split and faces the same logistics as the Labour Party...discord between large sections of the Parliamentary party and the membership. The Tory party though has a more effective system though of stopping the loons being put to the leadership mind.
I must say I'm sympathetic with the view that a soft Brexit isn't something that people voted for. It isn't one thing or the other.
People voted for Cake and Eat It - the exact same benefits of EU membership, but without the downsides. That is what they were promised. For very obvious reasons, it has never been deliverable.
Mr. Tyson, are you suggesting the statistics gathered in the UK are effectively as trustworthy (ie not very) as those of the Soviet Union?
I was just agreeing with Joff that people have to experience economic growth....the booms of the late 80's and late 90's propelled the governing parties to huge majorities where economic growth was matched with hefty rises in real wages. And Labour had the good sense to properly fund public services too.
People today are working harder and getting poorer and seeing their public services getting shitter. Not really the basis for the usual brigade on pbCOM to be ringing the bells about Brexit.
Well as fun as this chatting is I'm logging out to go and start work on my under-ground bunker before Vlad's Red Army arrives and starts slaughtering "thousands and thousands" of Brits.
Mr. Sandpit, Labour's Keynesian claims were always bullshit precisely because of that. Labour supported spending more than the economy could bear, always running a deficit. They cite Keynes' spending notion during a decline but utterly ignored (indeed, did the opposite) the surplus during the good times.
The last chancellor to run a surplus was, erm, Gordon something-or-other. I'd imagine he is also the last Chancellor to reduce the national debt, though I've not checked. In fact, Labour has run more surpluses than Conservatives.
And the current government has been running with a significant deficit during a period of economic growth.
That's a good point and it's difficult to see how that deficit can be eliminated bar some unexpected, super-charged growth, which is not going to happen in the short-term due to Brexit, or fairly hefty tax rises across the board. Certainly there can be no more cuts in public spending and there's probably going to have to some rises
Absolutely! The markets have clearly factored in the eventuality of Brexit being bogus and why not: no mainstream politician would risk a real Brexit as the consequences would be unthinkable. Okay, we'll relinquish our voting rights and will become a vassal state but hey ho. And yes - boot out May and Hammond. They've long outlived their usefulness. Get Boris and Rees-Mogg in there as a dream ticket and the entertainment can really begin.
Our sales for my medtech company are up 20% so far this year based on large international demand. We took the decision last year to move away from the NHS as our main customer. The low pound has had more impact than Brexit. In the end we have decided to remain under European regulatory control This we can do by moving our HQ to Ireland. If and when there is a new British system we may join it.
Good news for our staff I guess but does the UK Government benefit by becoming less and less relevant. Who knows. One of the side benefits of all the changes is that we have more options now to cut our taxes which again is good news for us but maybe not for Corbyn. By the time Labour gets in the UK corporate sector will be so mobile that any attempt to try punishing taxes will be impossible.
Good to hear your company is doing well, and long may that be the case.
Your last point is the one that sticks. Companies and those that run them now think much more regionally and globally when it comes to location and jurisdiction, it’s one of the reasons we are keen to get a good deal as we leave the EU.
It’s also, as you say, now increasingly difficult for a Corbyn to raise anywhere like the amount in taxes from businesses and wealthy individuals that he thinks he can and jurisdiction shopping is only going to become more commonplace. Luckily as we leave the EU we will regain our seat at the WTO where the necessary discussions on these issues will take place at a global level.
What do you think Britain can do by itself at the WTO? This is one of the mystical pieces of nonsense that Brexiters spout that doesn't even have a residue of logic to it.
I’d much rather see a British representative at the WTO, standing up for (as an example) financial services trade and looking after other British interests, rather than surrender our opinion to an EU delegate with their own agenda of bashing American tech companies and preserving agricultural tariffs.
And what do you think that British representative can achieve? I suppose they could help to block more liberalisation, but the average Leaver claims to want to do the opposite.
The last chancellor to run a surplus was, erm, Gordon something-or-other. I'd imagine he is also the last Chancellor to reduce the national debt, though I've not checked.
UK debt/GDP was 43% when Labour got into power, dropped to 34% by 2001 following Tory spending plans. It then steadily increased to 42% in 2007, and ballooned up to 76% by 2010.
Mr. L, that would be the Labour Chancellor who enjoyed a golden economic inheritance, a declining deficit, and followed Conservative spending plans for his first term, after which he ran up £153bn of unnecessary borrowing during a boom? That Gordon Brown?
Mr. M, that's a rather facile argument. You may as well remark on declining fraud rates [no idea if they're rising or falling, just using it as an example] by saying that's not much comfort to a man who lost his life savings and hanged himself. There will always be tragedy, and we must try and reduce it as much as possible. More people being in work and the economy improving helps that.
Mr. Tyson, fair enough. I do agree that we seem to have a squeezed middle as economic growth disproportionately (due to globalisation) benefits those nearer the top, with middle and low earners finding things trickier.
Edited extra bit: of course, the best way to help economically is to buy some of my books (The Adventures of Sir Edric is just 99p until the end of the month): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
Mr. Sandpit, Labour's Keynesian claims were always bullshit precisely because of that. Labour supported spending more than the economy could bear, always running a deficit. They cite Keynes' spending notion during a decline but utterly ignored (indeed, did the opposite) the surplus during the good times.
The last chancellor to run a surplus was, erm, Gordon something-or-other. I'd imagine he is also the last Chancellor to reduce the national debt, though I've not checked. In fact, Labour has run more surpluses than Conservatives.
If Gordon Brown was a tenth as good as you seem to think he was, he'd still be Prime Minister....
The guy plundered everything he could in the name of short-termism. We are still living with the consequences of his awful stewardship of the economy.
As I have been saying for years, Gordon Brown should be put up against a wall for PFI. I'm no hagiographer. But pb is dominated by Osborne's economically illiterate attack lines from five or ten years ago. Since leaving office, Osborne himself has conceded Labour got its response to the crisis right; in this he joins international commentators who have rightly praised Brown.
But put PFI to one side and Brown is the best Chancellor we've had in decades. Whether that is a very high bar is another question. Whether Jeremy Corbyn would approve is also in doubt. Brown was very much on the right of the party and to the fore of New Labour -- arguably he created it along with Mandelson.
Our sales for my medtech company are up 20% so far this year based on large international demand. We took the decision last year to move away from the NHS as our main customer. The low pound has had more impact than Brexit. In the end we have decided to remain under European regulatory control This we can do by moving our HQ to Ireland. If and when there is a new British system we may join it.
Good news for our staff I guess but does the UK Government benefit by becoming less and less relevant. Who knows. One of the side benefits of all the changes is that we have more options now to cut our taxes which again is good news for us but maybe not for Corbyn. By the time Labour gets in the UK corporate sector will be so mobile that any attempt to try punishing taxes will be impossible.
Good to hear your company is doing well, and long may that be the case.
Your last point is the one that sticks. Companies and those that run them now think much more regionally and globally when it comes to location and jurisdiction, it’s one of the reasons we are keen to get a good deal as we leave the EU.
It’s also, as you say, now increasingly difficult for a Corbyn to raise anywhere like the amount in taxes from businesses and wealthy individuals that he thinks he can and jurisdiction shopping is only going to become more commonplace. Luckily as we leave the EU we will regain our seat at the WTO where the necessary discussions on these issues will take place at a global level.
What do you think Britain can do by itself at the WTO? This is one of the mystical pieces of nonsense that Brexiters spout that doesn't even have a residue of logic to it.
I’d much rather see a British representative at the WTO, standing up for (as an example) financial services trade and looking after other British interests, rather than surrender our opinion to an EU delegate with their own agenda of bashing American tech companies and preserving agricultural tariffs.
And what do you think that British representative can achieve? I suppose they could help to block more liberalisation, but the average Leaver claims to want to do the opposite.
The vast majority of the Conservative Leave supporters (as opposed to the UKIP supporters) are in favour of free trade and dislike the inward-looking, protectionist stance of the EU in these matters.
Which option preserves the unity of the Conservative party?
That is a fair point!!
May's dilemma is that she knows that a soft Brexit is the only viable option due to the HoC arithmetics, but this does not go down well with the Moggster's swivel eyed brigade who can potentially bring her down. So, she has to give an indication that she is pursuing a hard Brexit. The Tory party is split and faces the same logistics as the Labour Party...discord between large sections of the Parliamentary party and the membership. The Tory party though has a more effective system though of stopping the loons being put to the leadership mind.
I must say I'm sympathetic with the view that a soft Brexit isn't something that people voted for. It isn't one thing or the other.
May’s issue is that a soft Brexit is not just the only viable route in parliament, it is the only way to Brexit without further damaging the economy.
Any replacement leader will face the same problem.
So would, by the way Corbyn. However, he would find it “easier” to soft Brexit given the vast majority of both the parliamentary party and the membership support soft Brexit or are Remainers. I think he would gladly decide that “Paris is worth a mass”.
May’s route - which leads directly to Brexit fudge and at least two years of “vassalage” (I would not use that term, but Macron and Rees-Mogg both have) - is really the only viable path, apart from EFTA which she ruled out from the beginning.
Johnson could sell an EFTA as a holding pattern. It’s the only Brexit that squares the circle, and perhaps the “pill” of FOM within the EEA could be “sugared” with more draconian measures against migration from outside the EU (saving the Commonwealth realms to win over the Telegraph foamers!).
There's a nice "Take That" from the Office of National Statistics:-
"On a calendar-year basis, the economy grew by 1.8% in 2017 – slightly below the 1.9% seen in 2016. This is well above growth expectations in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum vote in June 2016. In 2016, the average independent forecast and the Bank of England (BoE) predicted calendar year growth of 0.8% in 2017, while the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast predicted 1.4%1. "
Our sales for my medtech company are up 20% so far this year based on large international demand. We took the decision last year to move away from the NHS as our main customer. The low pound has had more impact than Brexit. In the end we have decided to remain under European regulatory control This we can do by moving our HQ to Ireland. If and when there is a new British system we may join it.
Good news for our staff I guess but does the UK Government benefit by becoming less and less relevant. Who knows. One of the side benefits of all the changes is that we have more options now to cut our taxes which again is good news for us but maybe not for Corbyn. By the time Labour gets in the UK corporate sector will be so mobile that any attempt to try punishing taxes will be impossible.
Good to hear your company is doing well, and long may that be the case.
Your last point is the one that sticks. Companies and those that run them now think much more regionally and globally when it comes to location and jurisdiction, it’s one of the reasons we are keen to get a good deal as we leave the EU.
It’s also, as you say, now increasingly difficult for a Corbyn to raise anywhere like the amount in taxes from businesses and wealthy individuals that he thinks he can and jurisdiction shopping is only going to become more commonplace. Luckily as we leave the EU we will regain our seat at the WTO where the necessary discussions on these issues will take place at a global level.
What do you think Britain can do by itself at the WTO? This is one of the mystical pieces of nonsense that Brexiters spout that doesn't even have a residue of logic to it.
I’d much rather see a British representative at the WTO, standing up for (as an example) financial services trade and looking after other British interests, rather than surrender our opinion to an EU delegate with their own agenda of bashing American tech companies and preserving agricultural tariffs.
And what do you think that British representative can achieve? I suppose they could help to block more liberalisation, but the average Leaver claims to want to do the opposite.
The vast majority of the Conservative Leave supporters (as opposed to the UKIP supporters) are in favour of free trade and dislike the inward-looking, protectionist stance of the EU in these matters.
Except that the EU’s record on trade agreements - while not perfect! - turns out to be better than the US, China, India, Japan etc etc.
The last chancellor to run a surplus was, erm, Gordon something-or-other. I'd imagine he is also the last Chancellor to reduce the national debt, though I've not checked.
UK debt/GDP was 43% when Labour got into power, dropped to 34% by 2001 following Tory spending plans. It then steadily increased to 42% in 2007, and ballooned up to 76% by 2010.
So after almost 8 years of Tory economic management, how far have they managed to reduce that figure?
Well as fun as this chatting is I'm logging out to go and start work on my under-ground bunker before Vlad's Red Army arrives and starts slaughtering "thousands and thousands" of Brits.
That's my fault too I'm afraid. Putin obviously read on here my advocating over the years that Labour should attack the Tories over their decimation of our armed forces and now he's realised the army is down to the SAS and two transport platoons at Catterick. Labour should claim defence as an issue, in the same way Conservatives are urged to claim the NHS -- see yesterday's thread on that.
No 10 statement - Theresa May has full confidence in Philip Hammond.
Read into that whatever you think
The chairman and the board of the football club have full confidence in the manager... (as they meet to decide if they fire him now or give him another fortnight to get a big win).
Which option preserves the unity of the Conservative party?
That is a fair point!!
May's dilemma is that she knows that a soft Brexit is the only viable option due to the HoC arithmetics, but this does not go down well with the Moggster's swivel eyed brigade who can potentially bring her down. So, she has to give an indication that she is pursuing a hard Brexit. The Tory party is split and faces the same logistics as the Labour Party...discord between large sections of the Parliamentary party and the membership. The Tory party though has a more effective system though of stopping the loons being put to the leadership mind.
I must say I'm sympathetic with the view that a soft Brexit isn't something that people voted for. It isn't one thing or the other.
The 52:48 vote indicates strongly that a soft Brexit was voted for.
Which option preserves the unity of the Conservative party?
That is a fair point!!
May's dilemma is that she knows that a soft Brexit is the only viable option due to the HoC arithmetics, but this does not go down well with the Moggster's swivel eyed brigade who can potentially bring her down. So, she has to give an indication that she is pursuing a hard Brexit. The Tory party is split and faces the same logistics as the Labour Party...discord between large sections of the Parliamentary party and the membership. The Tory party though has a more effective system though of stopping the loons being put to the leadership mind.
I must say I'm sympathetic with the view that a soft Brexit isn't something that people voted for. It isn't one thing or the other.
Agreed. The poor woman is in an impossible situation. Boris will use a soft Brexit as the perfect excuse to oust her. Of course, once that's achieved he'll sign up to the same version of Brexit himself and will probably get away with it, but that will be scant consolation for Theresa, who'll be out on her ear and barely warranting a footnote in the annals of history.
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May, Hammond and Carney out and a PM/CotE/Governor of the Bank of England who can actually present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
The public experiences the economy. The numbers and how they are presented mean absolutely nothing.
While that's correct, the numbers are not meaningless either. GDP translates into jobs and living standards.
Mr. L, that would be the Labour Chancellor who enjoyed a golden economic inheritance, a declining deficit, and followed Conservative spending plans for his first term, after which he ran up £153bn of unnecessary borrowing during a boom? That Gordon Brown?
Mr. M, that's a rather facile argument. You may as well remark on declining fraud rates [no idea if they're rising or falling, just using it as an example] by saying that's not much comfort to a man who lost his life savings and hanged himself. There will always be tragedy, and we must try and reduce it as much as possible. More people being in work and the economy improving helps that.
Mr. Tyson, fair enough. I do agree that we seem to have a squeezed middle as economic growth disproportionately (due to globalisation) benefits those nearer the top, with middle and low earners finding things trickier.
Edited extra bit: of course, the best way to help economically is to buy some of my books (The Adventures of Sir Edric is just 99p until the end of the month): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
I was simply arguing that we all experience the macroeconomy in intensely personal ways. My life was almost ruined by the '81 recession; I didn't even notice the '92 recession, but the .com bust screwed me. For a lot of people there is apparently zero link between economic statistics and their own lives. They're wrong of course. That's why they're muggles, while we are all here at Hogwarts.
As I have been saying for years, Gordon Brown should be put up against a wall for PFI. I'm no hagiographer. But pb is dominated by Osborne's economically illiterate attack lines from five or ten years ago. Since leaving office, Osborne himself has conceded Labour got its response to the crisis right; in this he joins international commentators who have rightly praised Brown.
But put PFI to one side and Brown is the best Chancellor we've had in decades. Whether that is a very high bar is another question. Whether Jeremy Corbyn would approve is also in doubt. Brown was very much on the right of the party and to the fore of New Labour -- arguably he created it along with Mandelson.
The increase in the debt/GDP ratio in the years 2001-2007 was unforgiveable and put us in a very weak condition. He allowed the economy to grow rapidly in those years by a massive increase in debt and credit which is still causing us problems. If you add the PFI spending to the very large increases in public spending on the books the true level of public debt in a time of high growth was a disgrace and, directly contrary to his assertions, put us in a very weak place to deal with the crash.
The record after the crash was better but mixed. The refusal to have a spending review because cuts would have been a part of it undermining his campaign against Tory cuts was grossly irresponsible and dishonest. There were a number of drivers of public spending and commitments made, most obviously in terms of in work benefits, that made further growth in spending very difficult to resist. The Northern Rock situation could have been handled a lot better. But the economy was kept liquid and alive even although the collapse in GDP was substantial. What it also showed was that too much of government revenue was coming from unsustainable income flows generated by the City.
What I found most egregious about Brown was his fundamental dishonesty. The constant reanouncement of money already promised. The adding up of years of spending to produce higher figures. The manipulation of the government accounts. The destruction of our pension industry with hidden taxes. He was not the first and subsequent Chancellors have repeated some of his innovations to their discredit but he was not trustworthy.
Looks to me like we've lost around 1% of GDP so far as a result of the referendum result, or maybe a bit more in aggregate. Of course no-one can be sure of the counter-factual - Mark Carney puts it at around 0.5% - but if you look at where we sit now relative to other similar economies, compare that to the position pre-referendum, and factor in the (relative) boost from the political stability that would have obtained in the case of a Remain result, 1% looks to me a sensible guesstimate. That's much less bad than I was expecting.
Of course business is currently factoring in expectations of a 2-year transition period and a smooth deal ending in something like Canada Plus. That's the most likely scenario at the moment, but there's still a tail risk of much greater disruption. We're not through this yet by any means.
Assuming we don't get that greater disruption, the next question is whether it is growth lost for ever, or growth postponed. Probably a bit of both. Overall it's not looking too disastrous in the medium term (four or five years, say), although 1% of GDP so far, with probably more loss to come, is not something to dismiss as unimportant - it won't be spread evenly. Long term, who knows? The economy will probably change in ways we can't model or predict.
A tentative move back into selected UK-focused stocks looks sensible to me, especially housebuilders and some property companies (British Land is on something like a 30% discount to NAV, which looks overdone). Of course, we have to factor in the Corbyn risk, so I'm not going overboard. Do your own research, this is not investment advice, I don't know anything, etc etc.
So after almost 8 years of Tory economic management, how far have they managed to reduce that figure?
It's up to 88.3% now, which basically looks like it's topped out. Most of the increase was in the first two years of the coalition (2012 84.5%) - borrowing 150bn/year will do that.
Which option preserves the unity of the Conservative party?
That is a fair point!!
May's dilemma is that she knows that a soft Brexit is the only viable option due to the HoC arithmetics, but this does not go down well with the Moggster's swivel eyed brigade who can potentially bring her down. So, she has to give an indication that she is pursuing a hard Brexit. The Tory party is split and faces the same logistics as the Labour Party...discord between large sections of the Parliamentary party and the membership. The Tory party though has a more effective system though of stopping the loons being put to the leadership mind.
I must say I'm sympathetic with the view that a soft Brexit isn't something that people voted for. It isn't one thing or the other.
May’s issue is that a soft Brexit is not just the only viable route in parliament, it is the only way to Brexit without further damaging the economy.
Any replacement leader will face the same problem.
So would, by the way Corbyn. However, he would find it “easier” to soft Brexit given the vast majority of both the parliamentary party and the membership support soft Brexit or are Remainers. I think he would gladly decide that “Paris is worth a mass”.
May’s route - which leads directly to Brexit fudge and at least two years of “vassalage” (I would not use that term, but Macron and Rees-Mogg both have) - is really the only viable path, apart from EFTA which she ruled out from the beginning.
Johnson could sell an EFTA as a holding pattern. It’s the only Brexit that squares the circle, and perhaps the “pill” of FOM within the EEA could be “sugared” with more draconian measures against migration from outside the EU (saving the Commonwealth realms to win over the Telegraph foamers!).
Is not EFTA incompatible with the Customs Union? Like Norway and Sweden, an EU/EFTA border which is monitored, there would have to a proper border in Ireland.
As I have been saying for years, Gordon Brown should be put up against a wall for PFI. I'm no hagiographer. But pb is dominated by Osborne's economically illiterate attack lines from five or ten years ago. Since leaving office, Osborne himself has conceded Labour got its response to the crisis right; in this he joins international commentators who have rightly praised Brown.
But put PFI to one side and Brown is the best Chancellor we've had in decades. Whether that is a very high bar is another question. Whether Jeremy Corbyn would approve is also in doubt. Brown was very much on the right of the party and to the fore of New Labour -- arguably he created it along with Mandelson.
The increase in the debt/GDP ratio in the years 2001-2007 was unforgiveable and put us in a very weak condition. He allowed the economy to grow rapidly in those years by a massive increase in debt and credit which is still causing us problems. If you add the PFI spending to the very large increases in public spending on the books the true level of public debt in a time of high growth was a disgrace and, directly contrary to his assertions, put us in a very weak place to deal with the crash.
The record after the crash was better but mixed. The refusal to have a spending review because cuts would have been a part of it undermining his campaign against Tory cuts was grossly irresponsible and dishonest. There were a number of drivers of public spending and commitments made, most obviously in terms of in work benefits, that made further growth in spending very difficult to resist. The Northern Rock situation could have been handled a lot better. But the economy was kept liquid and alive even although the collapse in GDP was substantial. What it also showed was that too much of government revenue was coming from unsustainable income flows generated by the City.
What I found most egregious about Brown was his fundamental dishonesty. The constant reanouncement of money already promised. The adding up of years of spending to produce higher figures. The manipulation of the government accounts. The destruction of our pension industry with hidden taxes. He was not the first and subsequent Chancellors have repeated some of his innovations to their discredit but he was not trustworthy.
We were in a weak position because banking and finance is a large part of our economy and we had massive regulatory failures. Brown deserves his share of the blame for that - albeit I doubt that the Tories would have done much differently.
But Brown not running a surplus post 2001 made no difference to our ability to borrow, and rates at which we can borrow have plummeted.
Which option preserves the unity of the Conservative party?
That is a fair point!!
May's dilemma is that she knows that a soft Brexit is the only viable option due to the HoC arithmetics, but this does not go down well with the Moggster's swivel eyed brigade who can potentially bring her down. So, she has to give an indication that she is pursuing a hard Brexit. The Tory party is split and faces the same logistics as the Labour Party...discord between large sections of the Parliamentary party and the membership. The Tory party though has a more effective system though of stopping the loons being put to the leadership mind.
I must say I'm sympathetic with the view that a soft Brexit isn't something that people voted for. It isn't one thing or the other.
Agreed. The poor woman is in an impossible situation. Boris will use a soft Brexit as the perfect excuse to oust her. Of course, once that's achieved he'll sign up to the same version of Brexit himself and will probably get away with it, but that will be scant consolation for Theresa, who'll be out on her ear and barely warranting a footnote in the annals of history.
Quite true. Poor Theresa. The only redeeming legacy factor on a Boris succession is that she'll at least default one place higher on British PM's....OK she'll still be one considered one of the worst and mostly pitied, not invited to parties, given any lucrative commissions, global positions with a bargain basement memoir soon to be offered free on Kindle and such like.....
But in that great pantheon of PM's she'll be able to piss on Boris's head in due course....although to have the likes of Gordon Brown and John Major well above her is not what she imagined this time last year...
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May, Hammond and Carney out and a PM/CotE/Governor of the Bank of England who can actually present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
As a contrarian Brexiteer, it's sad that we're happy with 1.8%. Compared to long term trend growth, it's still shit. We're ten years into our recovery and this is the best we can do?
From the perspective of bashing Remainers over the head with some of the ludicrous predictions of APOCALYPSE NOW that we saw during the campaign, yes, give yourself 10 billion Internet Points. From the point of view of wealth creation, I'm disappointed.
There was a vast amount of misallocated capital to work through. We chose to do it slowly to moderate the human cost but the trade off is slower growth. Iceland chose another approach and it worked for them - but I don’t think we had the national consensus that you have made ripping the bandage off achievable
Mr. Z, we should revive the concept of enlightened self-interest. Recent news reports stated that Zimbabwe has a lot of mineral wealth but can't exploit it because landowners lack the money to mine it.
We could front up the money. Zimbabwe gets tax revenue, locals get employment, the landowner makes a profit, and we make a profit too. It's good for them and it's good for us.
Why we don't do that is beyond me.
The UK has history in Zimbabwe
(But the Commonwealth Development Corporation used to exactly what you said until Brown decided making money from investing in emerging markets was unethical)
We were in a weak position because banking and finance is a large part of our economy and we had massive regulatory failures. Brown deserves his share of the blame for that - albeit I doubt that the Tories would have done much differently.
But Brown not running a surplus post 2001 made no difference to our ability to borrow, and rates at which we can borrow have plummeted.
I agree about the regulatory failures and I also agree that the jury is very definitely out on whether anyone else would have done better. Running a deficit up to 2007 meant that our deficit very rapidly ballooned to frankly dangerous levels, 12% of GDP. If we had entered the crash with a 2% surplus rather than a 3% deficit then it is likely that borrowing would have peaked at half that rate and we would be well into surplus by now.
We survived by essentially cheating. The market wouldn't lend us the money so we borrowed it from the BoE instead, essentially printing it. Over 1/3 of our entire national debt remains on the BoE books. The scale of what had to be done to keep the economy moving was breathtaking and we will be living with the consequences of those actions for a long time yet.
Which option preserves the unity of the Conservative party?
That is a fair point!!
May's dilemma is that she knows that a soft Brexit is the only viable option due to the HoC arithmetics, but this does not go down well with the Moggster's swivel eyed brigade who can potentially bring her down. So, she has to give an indication that she is pursuing a hard Brexit. The Tory party is split and faces the same logistics as the Labour Party...discord between large sections of the Parliamentary party and the membership. The Tory party though has a more effective system though of stopping the loons being put to the leadership mind.
I must say I'm sympathetic with the view that a soft Brexit isn't something that people voted for. It isn't one thing or the other.
Agreed. The poor woman is in an impossible situation. Boris will use a soft Brexit as the perfect excuse to oust her. Of course, once that's achieved he'll sign up to the same version of Brexit himself and will probably get away with it, but that will be scant consolation for Theresa, who'll be out on her ear and barely warranting a footnote in the annals of history.
Quite true. Poor Theresa. The only redeeming legacy factor on a Boris succession is that she'll at least default one place higher on British PM's....OK she'll still be one considered one of the worst and mostly pitied, not invited to parties, given any lucrative commissions, global positions with a bargain basement memoir soon to be offered free on Kindle and such like.....
But in that great pantheon of PM's she'll be able to piss on Boris's head in due course....although to have the likes of Gordon Brown and John Major well above her is not what she imagined this time last year...
PB remains one of the few places outside of Brussels where Remainers convince themselves that we're going to stay in the SM/CU.
The cabinet have decided to. The Labour front bench have decided to the same. We've said to our European partners we don't want to. The civil service are presumably working on that basis.
Even some Bubble Remainer journos are starting to realise.
When will the PB Pacific Island Remainers get the hint?
Agreed. The poor woman is in an impossible situation. Boris will use a soft Brexit as the perfect excuse to oust her. Of course, once that's achieved he'll sign up to the same version of Brexit himself and will probably get away with it, but that will be scant consolation for Theresa, who'll be out on her ear and barely warranting a footnote in the annals of history.
Quite true. Poor Theresa. The only redeeming legacy factor on a Boris succession is that she'll at least default one place higher on British PM's....OK she'll still be one considered one of the worst and mostly pitied, not invited to parties, given any lucrative commissions, global positions with a bargain basement memoir soon to be offered free on Kindle and such like.....
But in that great pantheon of PM's she'll be able to piss on Boris's head in due course....although to have the likes of Gordon Brown and John Major well above her is not what she imagined this time last year...
I well remember about 10 years ago there were multiple people on here loudly proclaiming BROWN IS THE MOST USELESS PM EVER....some of those people are still here, others like the late lamented Martin Day are long gone. But as a Tory voter it pains me to say that May makes Brown look like a political colossus in retrospect, and you are right that Boris or Mogg would be far worse still.
*awaits inevitable puerile rebuttal from HYUFD comparing Brown and May's electoral performance*
Looks to me like we've lost around 1% of GDP so far as a result of the referendum result, or maybe a bit more in aggregate. Of course no-one can be sure of the counter-factual - Mark Carney puts it at around 0.5% - but if you look at where we sit now relative to other similar economies, compare that to the position pre-referendum, and factor in the (relative) boost from the political stability that would have obtained in the case of a Remain result, 1% looks to me a sensible guesstimate. That's much less bad than I was expecting.
Of course business is currently factoring in expectations of a 2-year transition period and a smooth deal ending in something like Canada Plus. That's the most likely scenario at the moment, but there's still a tail risk of much greater disruption. We're not through this yet by any means.
Assuming we don't get that greater disruption, the next question is whether it is growth lost for ever, or growth postponed. Probably a bit of both. Overall it's not looking too disastrous in the medium term (four or five years, say), although 1% of GDP so far, with probably more loss to come, is not something to dismiss as unimportant - it won't be spread evenly. Long term, who knows? The economy will probably change in ways we can't model or predict.
A tentative move back into selected UK-focused stocks looks sensible to me, especially housebuilders and some property companies (British Land is on something like a 30% discount to NAV, which looks overdone). Of course, we have to factor in the Corbyn risk, so I'm not going overboard. Do your own research, this is not investment advice, I don't know anything, etc etc.
A 1% loss since the referendum is a shedload of money for the NHS! It is also a lot more than our annual net EU contribution. So it looks like the money we eventually save on not being an EU member state will not be spent on anything other than at least partially replacing the money we have lost as the result of not being an EU member state. Throw in the inevitable compromises on sovereignty and immigration that are coming this year and the whole exercise looks like a huge waste of time and effort for not very much at all.
The Tory hyperbole on Brown's overspending is just ridiculous. Brown was cautious and tinkered. The Tories would have been as equally unprepared for the Banking Crisis in power, and if in Govt at that time would have been at a similar point in borrowing. Probably taxes would have been a little lower and public service spending commensurately lower, but GDP borrowing more or less at 40%.
And the post banking crisis years would have been much the same with Labour in power these years....borrowing progressively higher, public services less well funded and real wage growth declining for a decade or more.
But now there is a genuine split from the consensus. McDonnell believes that with interest rates so low he can borrow significantly more to pay for capital projects and buying back some privatised industries, whilst taxing more to pay for public services. It's a view and McDonnell is a clever chap.
I must say I'm a cautious Brownite....but I can easily understand if people vote for Corbynomics.
No 10 statement - Theresa May has full confidence in Philip Hammond.
Read into that whatever you think
Since she just confirmed him in post in last week's reshuffle I should hope she does!
That reshuffle looks even worse in hindsight... but her fundamental problem is trying to ride two horses on Brexit.
If she'd waited on the reshuffle, Hammond has undermined his position with his comments on Brexit, as has the strain the NHS is bearing. She could have moved him without the difficulty that meant that she didn't in reality. As so often in politics, timing is everything.
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May, Hammond and Carney out and a PM/CotE/Governor of the Bank of England who can actually present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
As a contrarian Brexiteer, it's sad that we're happy with 1.8%. Compared to long term trend growth, it's still shit. We're ten years into our recovery and this is the best we can do?
From the perspective of bashing Remainers over the head with some of the ludicrous predictions of APOCALYPSE NOW that we saw during the campaign, yes, give yourself 10 billion Internet Points. From the point of view of wealth creation, I'm disappointed.
There was a vast amount of misallocated capital to work through. We chose to do it slowly to moderate the human cost but the trade off is slower growth. Iceland chose another approach and it worked for them - but I don’t think we had the national consensus that you have made ripping the bandage off achievable
Excellent post.
As someone who works a lot in Iceland, I should say that many Icelanders would have preferred the British softly softly approach but they wearily accept that it would have been impossible in their situation. Though their recovery has been impressive it has come at the cost of a tourist invasion so enormous that it seriously impacts quality of life for many.
A 1% loss since the referendum is a shedload of money for the NHS! It is also a lot more than our annual net EU contribution. So it looks like the money we eventually save on not being an EU member state will not be spent on anything other than at least partially replacing the money we have lost as the result of not being an EU member state. Throw in the inevitable compromises on sovereignty and immigration that are coming this year and the whole exercise looks like a huge waste of time and effort for not very much at all.
I agree, but that is what voters chose.
Edit: I misinterpreted Mark Carney's position, in fact his assessment is the same as mine (around 1% so far). If he agrees with me he must be right!
Mr. Tyson, as well as running a deficit in a boom, Brown also 'tinkered' by inventing a new regulatory system, which worked as well as a chocolate fire hydrant.
Just because May's rubbish doesn't mean we should forget or embellish all the things Brown screwed up.
Mr. Z, we should revive the concept of enlightened self-interest. Recent news reports stated that Zimbabwe has a lot of mineral wealth but can't exploit it because landowners lack the money to mine it.
We could front up the money. Zimbabwe gets tax revenue, locals get employment, the landowner makes a profit, and we make a profit too. It's good for them and it's good for us.
Why we don't do that is beyond me.
The UK has history in Zimbabwe
(But the Commonwealth Development Corporation used to exactly what you said until Brown decided making money from investing in emerging markets was unethical)
The CDC was started by Attlee in 1948, but Brown did indeed turn it into a private corporation, albeit with the government owning the shares. It is now a profit seeking entity, rather than development focussed, so not quite sure how that fits with your summary, indeed it has been criticised in development circles for excessive profiteering.
My Zambeef shares did well from a CDC investment though, so not all bad.
Mr. Tyson, as well as running a deficit in a boom, Brown also 'tinkered' by inventing a new regulatory system, which worked as well as a chocolate fire hydrant.
Just because May's rubbish doesn't mean we should forget or embellish all the things Brown screwed up.
The old regulatory system was also rubbish, and there was a technical reason it could not continue but I've forgotten what it was. Never mind, because the FCA and the deficit were irrelevant to what actually happened.
The vast majority of the Conservative Leave supporters (as opposed to the UKIP supporters) are in favour of free trade and dislike the inward-looking, protectionist stance of the EU in these matters.
This is totally disingenuous. Euroscepticism in the Jimmy Goldsmith days was based on opposition to the EU's support for global free trade and Conservatives have persistently lied about EU trade policy in respect of Africa and the developing world in general.
Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
May’s route - which leads directly to Brexit fudge and at least two years of “vassalage” (I would not use that term, but Macron and Rees-Mogg both have) - is really the only viable path, apart from EFTA which she ruled out from the beginning.
That's a massive triumph for Boris. Very soon - if not now - every Tory MP will look at Theresa then turn their desirous eyes towards Boris and think: 'Look what we've got and what we could have...'
The increase in the debt/GDP ratio in the years 2001-2007 was unforgiveable and put us in a very weak condition. He allowed the economy to grow rapidly in those years by a massive increase in debt and credit which is still causing us problems. If you add the PFI spending to the very large increases in public spending on the books the true level of public debt in a time of high growth was a disgrace and, directly contrary to his assertions, put us in a very weak place to deal with the crash.
The record after the crash was better but mixed. The refusal to have a spending review because cuts would have been a part of it undermining his campaign against Tory cuts was grossly irresponsible and dishonest. There were a number of drivers of public spending and commitments made, most obviously in terms of in work benefits, that made further growth in spending very difficult to resist. The Northern Rock situation could have been handled a lot better. But the economy was kept liquid and alive even although the collapse in GDP was substantial. What it also showed was that too much of government revenue was coming from unsustainable income flows generated by the City.
What I found most egregious about Brown was his fundamental dishonesty. The constant reanouncement of money already promised. The adding up of years of spending to produce higher figures. The manipulation of the government accounts. The destruction of our pension industry with hidden taxes. He was not the first and subsequent Chancellors have repeated some of his innovations to their discredit but he was not trustworthy.
We were in a weak position because banking and finance is a large part of our economy and we had massive regulatory failures. Brown deserves his share of the blame for that - albeit I doubt that the Tories would have done much differently.
But Brown not running a surplus post 2001 made no difference to our ability to borrow, and rates at which we can borrow have plummeted.
Of course it makes a bloody difference. Firstly, the government wouldn't have borrowed anything like as much year-on-year if it had gone into the crisis with a structural balance rather than a structural deficit of £50-80bn pa. Secondly, markets will be more inclined to lend at low rates to countries with lower debt-to-GDP ratios. Thirdly, a national consensus of low debt makes a more attractive lender; Labour proved that there was no such consensus, therefore there was greater risk, therefore, higher rates were demanded. There's no need for counterfactuals on this; other countries offer all the evidence needed.
Mr. Tyson, as well as running a deficit in a boom, Brown also 'tinkered' by inventing a new regulatory system, which worked as well as a chocolate fire hydrant.
Just because May's rubbish doesn't mean we should forget or embellish all the things Brown screwed up.
The old regulatory system was also rubbish, and there was a technical reason it could not continue but I've forgotten what it was. Never mind, because the FCA and the deficit were irrelevant to what actually happened.
They were not irrelevant at all. Brown's dismantling of financial supervision was the No 1 reason why the UK was hit so badly. He deliberately, and despite explicit warnings, set up a system where there was no body responsible for the overall stability of the banking system, ending a 150-year period of banking stability in the UK which had successfully weathered multiple world financial crashes, two world wars, and the Great Depression. He didn't understand what the hell he was doing, and replaced prudent supervision with box-ticking micro-regulation.
The No 2 reason why the UK was hit so badly was that the Brown deficit during the good times meant we were particularly badly placed when trouble came; there was no room for a responsible fiscal stimulus.
A 1% loss since the referendum is a shedload of money for the NHS! It is also a lot more than our annual net EU contribution. So it looks like the money we eventually save on not being an EU member state will not be spent on anything other than at least partially replacing the money we have lost as the result of not being an EU member state. Throw in the inevitable compromises on sovereignty and immigration that are coming this year and the whole exercise looks like a huge waste of time and effort for not very much at all.
I agree, but that is what voters chose.
Edit: I misinterpreted Mark Carney's position, in fact his assessment is the same as mine (around 1% so far). If he agrees with me he must be right!
I am not sure if this is the prospectus that voters were offered! It is the main reason why I voted Remain, though.
Agreed. The poor woman is in an impossible situation. Boris will use a soft Brexit as the perfect excuse to oust her. Of course, once that's achieved he'll sign up to the same version of Brexit himself and will probably get away with it, but that will be scant consolation for Theresa, who'll be out on her ear and barely warranting a footnote in the annals of history.
Quite true. Poor Theresa. The only redeeming legacy factor on a Boris succession is that she'll at least default one place higher on British PM's....OK she'll still be one considered one of the worst and mostly pitied, not invited to parties, given any lucrative commissions, global positions with a bargain basement memoir soon to be offered free on Kindle and such like.....
But in that great pantheon of PM's she'll be able to piss on Boris's head in due course....although to have the likes of Gordon Brown and John Major well above her is not what she imagined this time last year...
I well remember about 10 years ago there were multiple people on here loudly proclaiming BROWN IS THE MOST USELESS PM EVER....some of those people are still here, others like the late lamented Martin Day are long gone. But as a Tory voter it pains me to say that May makes Brown look like a political colossus in retrospect, and you are right that Boris or Mogg would be far worse still.
*awaits inevitable puerile rebuttal from HYUFD comparing Brown and May's electoral performance*
Pureile or not Brown left the worst economic crisis since WW2 and his 'prudence left Britain ill prepared for any crash led Labour to its lowest share of the vote since 1983. Under May unemployment is lower than it has been for decades and she got the highest Tory voteshare since 1983 last June.
For a supposedly Tory voter the fact you prefer Brown to May and dislike both Boris and Mogg places you in a miniscule segment of current supporters of the party
Mr. L, that would be the Labour Chancellor who enjoyed a golden economic inheritance, a declining deficit, and followed Conservative spending plans for his first term, after which he ran up £153bn of unnecessary borrowing during a boom? That Gordon Brown?
Mr. M, that's a rather facile argument. You may as well remark on declining fraud rates [no idea if they're rising or falling, just using it as an example] by saying that's not much comfort to a man who lost his life savings and hanged himself. There will always be tragedy, and we must try and reduce it as much as possible. More people being in work and the economy improving helps that.
Mr. Tyson, fair enough. I do agree that we seem to have a squeezed middle as economic growth disproportionately (due to globalisation) benefits those nearer the top, with middle and low earners finding things trickier.
Edited extra bit: of course, the best way to help economically is to buy some of my books (The Adventures of Sir Edric is just 99p until the end of the month): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
A declining deficit being newspeak for a deficit? Clarke's golden economic inheritance was a direct result of the complete collapse of Conservative policy. Ironically, Lamont was sacked for singing in the bath about the end of a ruinous policy he had opposed and Clarke had supported.
Mr. Sandpit, Labour's Keynesian claims were always bullshit precisely because of that. Labour supported spending more than the economy could bear, always running a deficit. They cite Keynes' spending notion during a decline but utterly ignored (indeed, did the opposite) the surplus during the good times.
The last chancellor to run a surplus was, erm, Gordon something-or-other. I'd imagine he is also the last Chancellor to reduce the national debt, though I've not checked. In fact, Labour has run more surpluses than Conservatives.
If Gordon Brown was a tenth as good as you seem to think he was, he'd still be Prime Minister....
The guy plundered everything he could in the name of short-termism. We are still living with the consequences of his awful stewardship of the economy.
As I have been saying for years, Gordon Brown should be put up against a wall for PFI. I'm no hagiographer. But pb is dominated by Osborne's economically illiterate attack lines from five or ten years ago. Since leaving office, Osborne himself has conceded Labour got its response to the crisis right; in this he joins international commentators who have rightly praised Brown.
But put PFI to one side and Brown is the best Chancellor we've had in decades. Whether that is a very high bar is another question. Whether Jeremy Corbyn would approve is also in doubt. Brown was very much on the right of the party and to the fore of New Labour -- arguably he created it along with Mandelson.
No. Even putting PFI to one side (which is a bit like saying “but X made the trains run on time”) Brown was a disaster
Fundamentally the City was a massive bubble. But Brown believed that the revenues were sustainable and hence created a massive structural deficit.
Moreover in refusing to set out a fiscal plan in 2010 for political reasons he debauched the role of government. In his actions he then did his best to pull forward growth into his last quarter in office and f*ck the next guy.
And that’s before talking about his asinine regulatory reforms
So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May, Hammond and Carney out and a PM/CotE/Governor of the Bank of England who can actually present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
As a contrarian Brexiteer, it's sad that we're happy with 1.8%. Compared to long term trend growth, it's still shit. We're ten years into our recovery and this is the best we can do?
From the perspective of bashing Remainers over the head with some of the ludicrous predictions of APOCALYPSE NOW that we saw during the campaign, yes, give yourself 10 billion Internet Points. From the point of view of wealth creation, I'm disappointed.
There was a vast amount of misallocated capital to work through. We chose to do it slowly to moderate the human cost but the trade off is slower growth. Iceland chose another approach and it worked for them - but I don’t think we had the national consensus that you have made ripping the bandage off achievable
Excellent post.
As someone who works a lot in Iceland, I should say that many Icelanders would have preferred the British softly softly approach but they wearily accept that it would have been impossible in their situation. Though their recovery has been impressive it has come at the cost of a tourist invasion so enormous that it seriously impacts quality of life for many.
Don't shop in Iceland personally, more a Waitrose man myself. Keep stacking those shelves, work that till!
Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).
Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
Less important to France and Germany and other European countries as a weight inside the EU.
Less important to the US for the same reason - because less able to influence inside the US’s main rival for trade and financial rule setting.
Less important to China - no longer a voice inside their main export market.
And, to all nations, we are no longer a reliable and stable route into a wealthy market of 500 million people.
And frankly, with Brexit the only show in town, we’re less able to manage an active foreign (and seemingly domestic) policy.
Britain’s global power has of course been in decline for a 100 years. We gave up pretending to be a superpower after Suez, and the 60s and 70s were all about retrenchment.
Thatcher, then Blair, arrested and reversed our decline. We were powerful players in the end of the Cold War, in the establishment of the single market, in the end of apartheid, and in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.
Then, downhill.
Iraq destroyed our credibility. The global financial crisis removed our means. But Brexit is the final nail in the coffin. It’s a retreat not just from a global role, but from a regional one.
I will continue to be surprised that the Brexiters - who tend to be Conservatives - and therefore traditionally proud and protective of Britain’s global power - are so sanguine about its rapid decline.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
Britain is still on the G7, the G20, the Council of Europe and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. However the Brexit vote was not to try and become a global superpower again but to restore sovereignty and regain control of our borders
I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?
Comments
Our sales for my medtech company are up 20% so far this year based on large international demand. We took the decision last year to move away from the NHS as our main customer. The low pound has had more impact than Brexit. In the end we have decided to remain under European regulatory control This we can do by moving our HQ to Ireland. If and when there is a new British system we may join it.
Good news for our staff I guess but does the UK Government benefit by becoming less and less relevant. Who knows. One of the side benefits of all the changes is that we have more options now to cut our taxes which again is good news for us but maybe not for Corbyn. By the time Labour gets in the UK corporate sector will be so mobile that any attempt to try punishing taxes will be impossible.
Meanwhile people live in the real world where they cannot get to see a GP, and walk past endless sleeping bags housing rough sleepers in their town centres. If Labour has a less polarising leader?? That said, May's hubris about Corbyn led to this present state of a governing party with absolutely no power, one which I am rather enjoying to be honest.
For me the very best thing about GE 2017 was the immediate realisation that the Tory rightwing ideological dream of an unregulated economy operating outside the EU was dead in the water.
Scott_P would already have shared 2,000 tweets by now if that'd happened....
Your last point is the one that sticks. Companies and those that run them now think much more regionally and globally when it comes to location and jurisdiction, it’s one of the reasons we are keen to get a good deal as we leave the EU.
It’s also, as you say, now increasingly difficult for a Corbyn to raise anywhere like the amount in taxes from businesses and wealthy individuals that he thinks he can and jurisdiction shopping is only going to become more commonplace. Luckily as we leave the EU we will regain our seat at the WTO where the necessary discussions on these issues will take place at a global level.
Inflation is measured on a weighted basket of goods & services that might not reflect your personal rate of inflation (e.g. hotels and restaurants make up 12.3% of the basket, while food & beverages make up 10.3%, which if you're poor is a nonsense).
Locally, we had a homeless man freeze to death just after Christmas. Still, I'm sure he'd have been cheered by our stellar services performance in Q4.
I must say I'm sympathetic with the view that a soft Brexit isn't something that people voted for. It isn't one thing or the other.
The guy plundered everything he could in the name of short-termism. We are still living with the consequences of his awful stewardship of the economy.
People today are working harder and getting poorer and seeing their public services getting shitter. Not really the basis for the usual brigade on pbCOM to be ringing the bells about Brexit.
Mr. M, that's a rather facile argument. You may as well remark on declining fraud rates [no idea if they're rising or falling, just using it as an example] by saying that's not much comfort to a man who lost his life savings and hanged himself. There will always be tragedy, and we must try and reduce it as much as possible. More people being in work and the economy improving helps that.
Mr. Tyson, fair enough. I do agree that we seem to have a squeezed middle as economic growth disproportionately (due to globalisation) benefits those nearer the top, with middle and low earners finding things trickier.
Edited extra bit: of course, the best way to help economically is to buy some of my books (The Adventures of Sir Edric is just 99p until the end of the month): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
But put PFI to one side and Brown is the best Chancellor we've had in decades. Whether that is a very high bar is another question. Whether Jeremy Corbyn would approve is also in doubt. Brown was very much on the right of the party and to the fore of New Labour -- arguably he created it along with Mandelson.
Any replacement leader will face the same problem.
So would, by the way Corbyn. However, he would find it “easier” to soft Brexit given the vast majority of both the parliamentary party and the membership support soft Brexit or are Remainers. I think he would gladly decide that “Paris is worth a mass”.
May’s route - which leads directly to Brexit fudge and at least two years of “vassalage” (I would not use that term, but Macron and Rees-Mogg both have) - is really the only viable path, apart from EFTA which she ruled out from the beginning.
Johnson could sell an EFTA as a holding pattern. It’s the only Brexit that squares the circle, and perhaps the “pill” of FOM within the EEA could be “sugared” with more draconian measures against migration from outside the EU (saving the Commonwealth realms to win over the Telegraph foamers!).
Read into that whatever you think
There's a nice "Take That" from the Office of National Statistics:-
"On a calendar-year basis, the economy grew by 1.8% in 2017 – slightly below the 1.9% seen in 2016. This is well above growth expectations in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum vote in June 2016. In 2016, the average independent forecast and the Bank of England (BoE) predicted calendar year growth of 0.8% in 2017, while the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast predicted 1.4%1. "
Stop getting high on your own supply.
(as they meet to decide if they fire him now or give him another fortnight to get a big win).
The record after the crash was better but mixed. The refusal to have a spending review because cuts would have been a part of it undermining his campaign against Tory cuts was grossly irresponsible and dishonest. There were a number of drivers of public spending and commitments made, most obviously in terms of in work benefits, that made further growth in spending very difficult to resist. The Northern Rock situation could have been handled a lot better. But the economy was kept liquid and alive even although the collapse in GDP was substantial. What it also showed was that too much of government revenue was coming from unsustainable income flows generated by the City.
What I found most egregious about Brown was his fundamental dishonesty. The constant reanouncement of money already promised. The adding up of years of spending to produce higher figures. The manipulation of the government accounts. The destruction of our pension industry with hidden taxes. He was not the first and subsequent Chancellors have repeated some of his innovations to their discredit but he was not trustworthy.
Of course business is currently factoring in expectations of a 2-year transition period and a smooth deal ending in something like Canada Plus. That's the most likely scenario at the moment, but there's still a tail risk of much greater disruption. We're not through this yet by any means.
Assuming we don't get that greater disruption, the next question is whether it is growth lost for ever, or growth postponed. Probably a bit of both. Overall it's not looking too disastrous in the medium term (four or five years, say), although 1% of GDP so far, with probably more loss to come, is not something to dismiss as unimportant - it won't be spread evenly. Long term, who knows? The economy will probably change in ways we can't model or predict.
A tentative move back into selected UK-focused stocks looks sensible to me, especially housebuilders and some property companies (British Land is on something like a 30% discount to NAV, which looks overdone). Of course, we have to factor in the Corbyn risk, so I'm not going overboard. Do your own research, this is not investment advice, I don't know anything, etc etc.
I’m beginning to feel like @SeanT ...
(Do all come - it’s a fantastic show. Open until 22 April)
But Brown not running a surplus post 2001 made no difference to our ability to borrow, and rates at which we can borrow have plummeted.
but her fundamental problem is trying to ride two horses on Brexit.
But in that great pantheon of PM's she'll be able to piss on Boris's head in due course....although to have the likes of Gordon Brown and John Major well above her is not what she imagined this time last year...
(But the Commonwealth Development Corporation used to exactly what you said until Brown decided making money from investing in emerging markets was unethical)
We survived by essentially cheating. The market wouldn't lend us the money so we borrowed it from the BoE instead, essentially printing it. Over 1/3 of our entire national debt remains on the BoE books. The scale of what had to be done to keep the economy moving was breathtaking and we will be living with the consequences of those actions for a long time yet.
Another daft Brown decision.
The cabinet have decided to. The Labour front bench have decided to the same. We've said to our European partners we don't want to. The civil service are presumably working on that basis.
Even some Bubble Remainer journos are starting to realise.
When will the PB Pacific Island Remainers get the hint?
*awaits inevitable puerile rebuttal from HYUFD comparing Brown and May's electoral performance*
And the post banking crisis years would have been much the same with Labour in power these years....borrowing progressively higher, public services less well funded and real wage growth declining for a decade or more.
But now there is a genuine split from the consensus. McDonnell believes that with interest rates so low he can borrow significantly more to pay for capital projects and buying back some privatised industries, whilst taxing more to pay for public services. It's a view and McDonnell is a clever chap.
I must say I'm a cautious Brownite....but I can easily understand if people vote for Corbynomics.
As someone who works a lot in Iceland, I should say that many Icelanders would have preferred the British softly softly approach but they wearily accept that it would have been impossible in their situation. Though their recovery has been impressive it has come at the cost of a tourist invasion so enormous that it seriously impacts quality of life for many.
Edit: I misinterpreted Mark Carney's position, in fact his assessment is the same as mine (around 1% so far). If he agrees with me he must be right!
Just because May's rubbish doesn't mean we should forget or embellish all the things Brown screwed up.
My Zambeef shares did well from a CDC investment though, so not all bad.
Shark charities flooded with donations after Trump says he hopes sharks die
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/shark-charities-flooded-with-donations-after-trump-says-he-hopes-sharks-die-2018-01-23
Since Trump’s strong anti-shark stance became public late last week, donations have poured in at the nonprofits Atlantic White Shark Conservancy and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society…
The No 2 reason why the UK was hit so badly was that the Brown deficit during the good times meant we were particularly badly placed when trouble came; there was no room for a responsible fiscal stimulus.
For a supposedly Tory voter the fact you prefer Brown to May and dislike both Boris and Mogg places you in a miniscule segment of current supporters of the party
Fundamentally the City was a massive bubble. But Brown believed that the revenues were sustainable and hence created a massive structural deficit.
Moreover in refusing to set out a fiscal plan in 2010 for political reasons he debauched the role of government. In his actions he then did his best to pull forward growth into his last quarter in office and f*ck the next guy.
And that’s before talking about his asinine regulatory reforms
Not a good Chancellor at all.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.