We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
I mean, against what?
I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.
That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.
Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?
That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.
So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
I mean, against what?
I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.
That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.
Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?
That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.
So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?
To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate.
We have placed frictions on our trading performance, and immigration both of which had real positive productivity and growth effects.
We are also already experiencing a big drop in FDI which also supported productivity growth and thereby, eventually, GDP growth.
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
I wonder what image he would choose now...
I have this saved for future use.
What is going on below the picture line there?
It has troubled me for four years and I'm still none the wiser.
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
Strange that the Labour Party delights in being anti-Brexit. They complain that with the loss of the Eastern Europeans, the era of cheap labour for farmers is ending, and thus so must the era of cheap food. A point that John Harris made in the Guardian recently. Therefore it is bad?
Yet this is the party of the trades unions, the very party that owes its existence to the trade unions The party that idolises the Tolpuddle martyrs as brave men who fought against the lowering of wages for agricultural labourers by trying to form a union.
Did those Dorset men die in vain?
Perhaps, Labour should call themselves the Hypocrites-r-Us party?
That is the Corbyn view of what the EU can do for us and why he hates it. He would probably agree with your analysis too about the current Labour party.
These Eastern European workers were on minimum wage, they were not being exploited any more than someone from the UK working in a field or a bar is being exploited. Your view by implication is the one that Johnny Foreigner was stealing our jobs by undercutting domestic Labour, well that has proven to be a falsehood from what I can see, as the harvest begins to rot in the fields of Eastern England.
How's that proven false?
If farmers don't want the harvest to rot, then they'll need to offer more than minimum wage. Which seems fair enough, picking fields seems like gruelling manual labour and I don't see why farmers should be self-entitled to fill that for minimum wage.
If farmers decide they don't want the harvest to rot, and they offer better wages as a result, then doesn't that prove that importing people from the third world [subsidised often by offering in-work benefits too] was undercutting our domestic wages?
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
I mean, against what?
I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.
That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.
Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?
That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.
So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?
To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate.
We have placed frictions on our trading performance, and immigration both of which had real positive productivity and growth effects.
We are also already experiencing a big drop in FDI which also supported productivity growth and thereby, eventually, GDP growth.
That's what I thought you were saying, and what I'm trying to say is I don't see anything in the data to suggest that such a 0.5% was there to be lost in the first place.
To put it another way if the UK (or eg Italy instead of the UK) had not signed Maastricht and had Brexit in 1993 instead, are you suggesting that we'd have had 0.5% less annual growth, compounded, since 1993? Where would that put us now?
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
Sure: but we were also growing faster than the EU before Brexit too. So we need to measure ourselves relative to that baseline, rather than to general EU growth.
Not necessarily. The EU is considerably behind us per capita so if they sort themselves out they should have room to 'catch up' with us and have faster growth than we can. Just because they've done badly in the past, is no guarantee they'll continue to do badly.
I expect you are right that we'll continue to grow faster than the EU, hence my bet earlier today with Gardenwalker on this subject, but either option is at least theoretically possible.
As @geoffw says - it's tricky. My gut is that we (and France FWIW) have relatively healthy demographics, and therefore should show reasonably good base levels of economic growth. By contrast Greece and Italy have terrible demographics, and Germany, Portugal and Spain aren't great either.
If you were to look at output per person of working age, there's actually been surprisingly little difference between the major economies worldwide in the last decade or two. Indeed, the best performing major country on "per person of working age" since 2000 is actually Japan - which goes to show how much demographics can really shaft you.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
Regardless of how you cut it, Western European countries are already affluent. Why are we measuring success solely in terms of growth of that economic affluence instead of or in conjunction with some other parameters, such as happiness, sustainability, health, environmental quality etc...?
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
I mean, against what?
I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.
That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.
Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?
That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.
So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?
To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate.
We have placed frictions on our trading performance, and immigration both of which had real positive productivity and growth effects.
We are also already experiencing a big drop in FDI which also supported productivity growth and thereby, eventually, GDP growth.
That's what I thought you were saying, and what I'm trying to say is I don't see anything in the data to suggest that such a 0.5% was there to be lost in the first place.
To put it another way if the UK (or eg Italy instead of the UK) had not signed Maastricht and had Brexit in 1993 instead, are you suggesting that we'd have had 0.5% less annual growth, compounded, since 1993? Where would that put us now?
On your last paragraph, yes I am saying that. Ceteris paribus, of course.
Same issue NZ would have had, were it not to have signed trade deals with China et al.
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
I wonder what image he would choose now...
I have this saved for future use.
Is this a caption competition?
Yes Boris, I'm coming.
We can make this a caption competition.
It could be about hearts and minds in the John Wayne sense.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
Sure: but we were also growing faster than the EU before Brexit too. So we need to measure ourselves relative to that baseline, rather than to general EU growth.
Tricky. The way to do it imo is to use the OECD's measure of potential output for several years before we brexited and then again after, say, 4 or 5 years. That would standardise for any conjunctural differences between economies.
Given CV19, I think I'd want more than 4 to 5 years post Brexit; you'd really want at least one full economic cycle, so say 8 to 10 years.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
Sure: but we were also growing faster than the EU before Brexit too. So we need to measure ourselves relative to that baseline, rather than to general EU growth.
Not necessarily. The EU is considerably behind us per capita so if they sort themselves out they should have room to 'catch up' with us and have faster growth than we can. Just because they've done badly in the past, is no guarantee they'll continue to do badly.
I expect you are right that we'll continue to grow faster than the EU, hence my bet earlier today with Gardenwalker on this subject, but either option is at least theoretically possible.
As @geoffw says - it's tricky. My gut is that we (and France FWIW) have relatively healthy demographics, and therefore should show reasonably good base levels of economic growth. By contrast Greece and Italy have terrible demographics, and Germany, Portugal and Spain aren't great either.
If you were to look at output per person of working age, there's actually been surprisingly little difference between the major economies worldwide in the last decade or two. Indeed, the best performing major country on "per person of working age" since 2000 is actually Japan - which goes to show how much demographics can really shaft you.
I agree with that, which is part of why I think EU membership (and therefore Brexit) is of no major consequence economically. Because there's no "EU premium" of extra growth recorded for EU versus non-EU nations in the past decade, or since 1993, or really any appropriate period you want to look at.
@Gardenwalker "To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate."
Laughable.
Our long term growth rate is ~ 2% p.a.. So the single market was worth a quarter of our growth rate!
You haven't got a clue about growth. It is almost entirely accounted for by productivity change (i.e. technological change) and has hovered around 2% since WWII.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
Regardless of how you cut it, Western European countries are already affluent. Why are we measuring success solely in terms of growth of that economic affluence instead of or in conjunction with some other parameters, such as happiness, sustainability, health, environmental quality etc...?
@Gardenwalker "To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate."
Laughable.
Our long term growth rate is ~ 2% p.a.. So the single market was worth a quarter of our growth rate!
You haven't got a clue about growth. It is almost entirely accounted for by productivity change (i.e. technological change) and has hovered around 2% since WWII.
To take your argument to its absurd end, there is no point trading and productivity just “happens”.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
I mean, against what?
I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.
That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.
Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?
That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.
So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?
To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate.
We have placed frictions on our trading performance, and immigration both of which had real positive productivity and growth effects.
We are also already experiencing a big drop in FDI which also supported productivity growth and thereby, eventually, GDP growth.
That's what I thought you were saying, and what I'm trying to say is I don't see anything in the data to suggest that such a 0.5% was there to be lost in the first place.
To put it another way if the UK (or eg Italy instead of the UK) had not signed Maastricht and had Brexit in 1993 instead, are you suggesting that we'd have had 0.5% less annual growth, compounded, since 1993? Where would that put us now?
On your last paragraph, yes I am saying that. Ceteris paribus, of course.
Same issue NZ would have had, were it not to have signed trade deals with China et al.
But it never is ceteris paribus, is it? A change to a part changes the whole.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
I mean, against what?
I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.
That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.
Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?
That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.
So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?
To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate.
We have placed frictions on our trading performance, and immigration both of which had real positive productivity and growth effects.
We are also already experiencing a big drop in FDI which also supported productivity growth and thereby, eventually, GDP growth.
That's what I thought you were saying, and what I'm trying to say is I don't see anything in the data to suggest that such a 0.5% was there to be lost in the first place.
To put it another way if the UK (or eg Italy instead of the UK) had not signed Maastricht and had Brexit in 1993 instead, are you suggesting that we'd have had 0.5% less annual growth, compounded, since 1993? Where would that put us now?
On your last paragraph, yes I am saying that. Ceteris paribus, of course.
Same issue NZ would have had, were it not to have signed trade deals with China et al.
Thought so.
Well as I'm saying I don't see anything in EU, UK, Italy or other data to show such an extra 0.5% compounded growth since 1993.
Indeed NZ is an interesting counterpoint, they show what freedom to operate as an independent nation which can sign its own deals and look after its own interests can do.
If you were to do a chart of GDP per capita for the Euro Area, UK and New Zealand setting 1993 as 100 then its quite self-evident that the EU has no growth premium in the past nearly three decades.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
I mean, against what?
I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.
That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.
Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?
That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.
So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?
If you look at developed world economies that aren't in the EU/EEA, you actually get a pretty small list:
Japan Australia US Canada (And possibly South Korea)
So before you start, you're already suffering from the dreaded "beware of small datasets" problem.
Then, of those four, you have two which are resource economies. (Yes, Australia is a resource economy.) And resources went through a boom in the last quarter century - which meant massive investment as well as big rises in exports. By contrast the EU and Japan were resource importers, and therefore saw economic drag from rises in commodity prices.
Basically, it's complex.
Edit to add: I forgot New Zealand. Which is also a resources driven economy.
@Gardenwalker "To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate."
Laughable.
Our long term growth rate is ~ 2% p.a.. So the single market was worth a quarter of our growth rate!
You haven't got a clue about growth. It is almost entirely accounted for by productivity change (i.e. technological change) and has hovered around 2% since WWII.
To take your argument to its absurd end, there is no point trading and productivity just “happens”.
Not so absurd. There is very little that economic policy or even trading arrangements can do to affect economic growth. The level of GDP per capita is a different story.
@Gardenwalker "To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate."
Laughable.
Our long term growth rate is ~ 2% p.a.. So the single market was worth a quarter of our growth rate!
You haven't got a clue about growth. It is almost entirely accounted for by productivity change (i.e. technological change) and has hovered around 2% since WWII.
To take your argument to its absurd end, there is no point trading and productivity just “happens”.
No productivity doesn't just happen.
Science, technology and knowledge leads to it generally.
And trade isn't and shouldn't be just within your own continent. Indeed most British trade isn't within our own continent. New Zealand which has grown considerably faster than Europe for decades doesn't trade with even a single nation within a thousand kilometres of it, not one.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
I mean, against what?
I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.
That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.
Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?
That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.
So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?
To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate.
We have placed frictions on our trading performance, and immigration both of which had real positive productivity and growth effects.
We are also already experiencing a big drop in FDI which also supported productivity growth and thereby, eventually, GDP growth.
That's what I thought you were saying, and what I'm trying to say is I don't see anything in the data to suggest that such a 0.5% was there to be lost in the first place.
To put it another way if the UK (or eg Italy instead of the UK) had not signed Maastricht and had Brexit in 1993 instead, are you suggesting that we'd have had 0.5% less annual growth, compounded, since 1993? Where would that put us now?
On your last paragraph, yes I am saying that. Ceteris paribus, of course.
Same issue NZ would have had, were it not to have signed trade deals with China et al.
But it never is ceteris paribus, is it? A change to a part changes the whole.
I think that there are school of Brexiters who fool themselves that you can clamp trade barriers on 50% of your trade and that somehow things will sort themselves out.
I mean, they might - but as a start you’d need a government that actually confesses the reality of some pretty basic economics and finds alternative sources of growth.
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
I wonder what image he would choose now...
I have this saved for future use.
Michael Gove finds out too late that a member of the NEU has put glue on his chair.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.
I don't exactly disagree with this but my Remain vote was based on a different (and very strong) feeling; that in order to meet the big challenges - (i) sustainable green growth (ii) equitable wealth distribution (iii) the emancipation of women (iv) racial equality - the direction of travel in the world has to be countries co-operating not competing, more internationalism less nationalism, open not closed borders; and that Brexit was the opposite of this and might presage a weakening of the EU, possibly even its collapse one day; this unique and innovative project over and failed, the continent reverting by a century to a rag bag collection of 'proud' nation states, each with their own little trade-impeding currencies, clashing foreign policies and agendas, tempted by race to the bottom economics, all generally trying to 'win' and 'beat' rather than 'improve' and 'develop', prone to aggression and bellicosity, a playground for cheap populist politicians to romp around in, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.
Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.
Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:
* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT. * Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis. *Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail. * An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon. * Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt. * Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing. * The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT. * Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt. * An increase in IT to fund social care properly.
Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).
Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.
I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).
I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.
Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.
If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.
In absolute terms, not relative terms. Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.
If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?
Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?
Regardless of how you cut it, Western European countries are already affluent. Why are we measuring success solely in terms of growth of that economic affluence instead of or in conjunction with some other parameters, such as happiness, sustainability, health, environmental quality etc...?
We are driving towards the edge of a cliff and cheering when we can make the car go faster.
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
I wonder what image he would choose now...
I have this saved for future use.
The Invisible Man says 'Thank you'.
‘When I said you should cut off the little prick, I meant Boris, not…’
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.
I don't exactly disagree with this but my Remain vote was based on a different (and very strong) feeling; that in order to meet the big challenges - (i) sustainable green growth (ii) equitable wealth distribution (iii) the emancipation of women (iv) racial equality - the direction of travel in the world has to be countries co-operating not competing, more internationalism less nationalism, open not closed borders; and that Brexit was the opposite of this and might presage a weakening of the EU, possibly even its collapse one day; this unique and innovative project over and failed, the continent reverting by a century to a rag bag collection of 'proud' nation states, each with their own little trade-impeding currencies, clashing foreign policies and agendas, tempted by race to the bottom economics, all generally trying to 'win' and 'beat' rather than 'improve' and 'develop', prone to aggression and bellicosity, a playground for cheap populist politicians to romp around in, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.
Are you saying in point (iii) that, in the U.K. / developed economies, emancipation of women is a great challenge? Rather strange comment.
On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.
It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
I wonder what image he would choose now...
I have this saved for future use.
Michael Gove finds out too late that a member of the NEU has put glue on his chair.
The re-enactment of Edward II's death scene gets just a little too real.....
There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.
I wonder what image he would choose now...
I have this saved for future use.
Michael Gove finds out too late that a member of the NEU has put glue on his chair.
The re-enactment of Edward II's death scene gets just a little too real.....
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
Its not been a good month for the government either.
Normally the ratings for the LotO would fall when the government were doing well.
If they're falling when the government is struggling ...
I really do believe the public do not think labour could do any better
Not just that.
The public don't have a clue as to what Labour would even try to do.
Do Labour?
One thing I did think earlier when people were talking about Labour's botched response to May's deal is it did betray a lack of imagination on their part. No, and a second referendum after a renegotiation. Well, that was never going to fly. As Johnson proved, there wasn't an alternative deal available that didn't have even more significant drawbacks. So why waste time renegotiating?
I don't think anyone is surprised Corbyn has no imagination. He's essentially parroted the same (discredited) lines for 50 years. There was nothing in either of his manifestoes that was new or would surprise anyone on the upside.
But Starmer doesn't really seem to have much imagination either. Where's the energy from the troika of Blair, Brown and Mandelson that drove them to power in the 1990s? Where, for the matter of that, is the urbanity of Cameron, Osborne and Gove or the radicalism of Thatcher, Joseph and Howe?
True, he's been unlucky, but some more invention would be appreciated.
Even if he got it wrong it would get people talking.
On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.
It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
There have been literally hundreds of such studies. Per capita economic growth (the relevant measure for welfare) is not explained by either of the factors you mention.
Its not been a good month for the government either.
Normally the ratings for the LotO would fall when the government were doing well.
If they're falling when the government is struggling ...
Can’t have it that a prospective PM is getting 23% positives 18 months into the job of LotO. (Maybe Cameron did? But that was before people saw him vs Brown)
This PB piece says the worst net score for a LotO who became PM was Cameron’s -22. Sir Keir has more than doubled that
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
SPD and Green are on 41.65% combined, still well short of a majority.
They would still need the Union or FDP or Linke too, probably one of the former 2 as Scholz is on the right of the SPD.
On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.
It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
There have been literally hundreds of such studies. Per capita economic growth (the relevant measure for welfare) is not explained by either of the factors you mention.
Presumably a very elderly population is going to have a lower GDP per capita than one with a larger percentage of working age people.
Indeed this may explain the slowdown in Western economies since the 90s (from the post war boom).
I told you that Afghanistan wouldn't damage the Conservatives in the short term.
Johnson sensibly kept his head down, and the BBC narrative has been one of mission accomplished, so despite what ex military are saying no harm done.
Interestingly though neither Labour nor the LDs nor the Greens are up on that poll but Reform UK are, which would suggest that any Tory votes lost have gone to Reform UK over immigration (Leavers being least likely to want to welcome Afghan refugees here)
Its not been a good month for the government either.
Normally the ratings for the LotO would fall when the government were doing well.
If they're falling when the government is struggling ...
I really do believe the public do not think labour could do any better
Not just that.
The public don't have a clue as to what Labour would even try to do.
Do Labour?
One thing I did think earlier when people were talking about Labour's botched response to May's deal is it did betray a lack of imagination on their part. No, and a second referendum after a renegotiation. Well, that was never going to fly. As Johnson proved, there wasn't an alternative deal available that didn't have even more significant drawbacks. So why waste time renegotiating?
I don't think anyone is surprised Corbyn has no imagination. He's essentially parroted the same (discredited) lines for 50 years. There was nothing in either of his manifestoes that was new or would surprise anyone on the upside.
But Starmer doesn't really seem to have much imagination either. Where's the energy from the troika of Blair, Brown and Mandelson that drove them to power in the 1990s? Where, for the matter of that, is the urbanity of Cameron, Osborne and Gove or the radicalism of Thatcher, Joseph and Howe?
True, he's been unlucky, but some more invention would be appreciated.
Even if he got it wrong it would get people talking.
I agree on Corbyn himself. All views formed long ago and not for turning by one iota. But that's harsh and wrong on the manifestos. There was some creative thinking in there. Eg taxing inheritance as income to the recipient.
On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.
It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
There have been literally hundreds of such studies. Per capita economic growth (the relevant measure for welfare) is not explained by either of the factors you mention.
Presumably a very elderly population is going to have a lower GDP per capita than one with a larger percentage of working age people.
Indeed this may explain the slowdown in Western economies since the 90s (from the post war boom).
Yes, almost a truism. .. and perhaps (partially - there are other factors).
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.
I don't exactly disagree with this but my Remain vote was based on a different (and very strong) feeling; that in order to meet the big challenges - (i) sustainable green growth (ii) equitable wealth distribution (iii) the emancipation of women (iv) racial equality - the direction of travel in the world has to be countries co-operating not competing, more internationalism less nationalism, open not closed borders; and that Brexit was the opposite of this and might presage a weakening of the EU, possibly even its collapse one day; this unique and innovative project over and failed, the continent reverting by a century to a rag bag collection of 'proud' nation states, each with their own little trade-impeding currencies, clashing foreign policies and agendas, tempted by race to the bottom economics, all generally trying to 'win' and 'beat' rather than 'improve' and 'develop', prone to aggression and bellicosity, a playground for cheap populist politicians to romp around in, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.
I started out in favour of L'Acte Unique, believing along the ground that you outline, that a greater whole would be better placed to address those issues, such as immigration and refugees and environmental issues, that are best addressed a the international or regional level, while the principle of subsidiarity would preserve the link to local politics.
Alas, subsidiarity was completely shat on. And the EU has not covered itself in glory on the big issues.
On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.
It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
Yep. That explains relativities and global trends explain the absolutes. National governments have little impact by and large and by comparison.
I told you that Afghanistan wouldn't damage the Conservatives in the short term.
Johnson sensibly kept his head down, and the BBC narrative has been one of mission accomplished, so despite what ex military are saying no harm done.
I actually believe the evacuation, and especially the safe return of our military (unlike the US) has to be considered a success in itself.
Also the constant demands for Raab to go seem to have failed, though he is likely to have damaged his promotion chances in the party and even his re-election chances in his constituency
And my membership of the conservative party lapses next week, so I suppose I become homeless but I have two years to decide, as long as I keep taking my pills mind you !!!!!
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.
I don't exactly disagree with this but my Remain vote was based on a different (and very strong) feeling; that in order to meet the big challenges - (i) sustainable green growth (ii) equitable wealth distribution (iii) the emancipation of women (iv) racial equality - the direction of travel in the world has to be countries co-operating not competing, more internationalism less nationalism, open not closed borders; and that Brexit was the opposite of this and might presage a weakening of the EU, possibly even its collapse one day; this unique and innovative project over and failed, the continent reverting by a century to a rag bag collection of 'proud' nation states, each with their own little trade-impeding currencies, clashing foreign policies and agendas, tempted by race to the bottom economics, all generally trying to 'win' and 'beat' rather than 'improve' and 'develop', prone to aggression and bellicosity, a playground for cheap populist politicians to romp around in, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.
Are you saying in point (iii) that, in the U.K. / developed economies, emancipation of women is a great challenge? Rather strange comment.
And it's back! The RAF KC2 (Airbus 330) that flew from Dubai then disappeared over Pakistan heading in a northerly direction has re-appeared over Pakistan heading in a southerly direction:
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
SPD and Green are on 41.65% combined, still well short of a majority.
They would still need the Union or FDP or Linke too, probably one of the former 2 as Scholz is on the right of the SPD.
Do remember, though, that the 7% of the vote that goes to Others doesn't get seats. So it's 41.65% out of 93% - which is stil short of a majority but it's closer than it looks.
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.
I told you that Afghanistan wouldn't damage the Conservatives in the short term.
Johnson sensibly kept his head down, and the BBC narrative has been one of mission accomplished, so despite what ex military are saying no harm done.
Interestingly though neither Labour nor the LDs nor the Greens are up on that poll but Reform UK are, which would suggest that any Tory votes lost have gone to Reform UK over immigration (Leavers being least likely to want to welcome Afghan refugees here)
Sorry to disappoint but MoE seems more likely than Reform UK preparing for government.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.
I don't exactly disagree with this but my Remain vote was based on a different (and very strong) feeling; that in order to meet the big challenges - (i) sustainable green growth (ii) equitable wealth distribution (iii) the emancipation of women (iv) racial equality - the direction of travel in the world has to be countries co-operating not competing, more internationalism less nationalism, open not closed borders; and that Brexit was the opposite of this and might presage a weakening of the EU, possibly even its collapse one day; this unique and innovative project over and failed, the continent reverting by a century to a rag bag collection of 'proud' nation states, each with their own little trade-impeding currencies, clashing foreign policies and agendas, tempted by race to the bottom economics, all generally trying to 'win' and 'beat' rather than 'improve' and 'develop', prone to aggression and bellicosity, a playground for cheap populist politicians to romp around in, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.
I started out in favour of L'Acte Unique, believing along the ground that you outline, that a greater whole would be better placed to address those issues, such as immigration and refugees and environmental issues, that are best addressed a the international or regional level, while the principle of subsidiarity would preserve the link to local politics.
Alas, subsidiarity was completely shat on. And the EU has not covered itself in glory on the big issues.
The problem was that after 89, the leadership of the EU (and the national leadership in some countries) went a bit off the rails.
They thought they could achieve centuries of integration in years, just by bypassing localism. Since the Boni in the various member states were signed up to The Project, what could possibly go wrong?
Last week, Jurgen Klopp urged supporters to put an end to the offensive chants after Chelsea midfielder Billy Gilmour, on loan at Norwich, was targeted with the words 'Chelsea rent boy' during Liverpool's 3-0 win at Carrow Road on August 14.
Liverpool immediately branded the chant as "offensive and inappropriate" - something they also did in April 2019 when it was heard widely at Anfield during their 2-0 win over Chelsea.
I wonder why this is tolerated? I suspect racist chanting would result in games being played behind closed doors.
I told you that Afghanistan wouldn't damage the Conservatives in the short term.
Johnson sensibly kept his head down, and the BBC narrative has been one of mission accomplished, so despite what ex military are saying no harm done.
I actually believe the evacuation, and especially the safe return of our military (unlike the US) has to be considered a success in itself.
Also the constant demands for Raab to go seem to have failed, though he is likely to have damaged his promotion chances in the party and even his re-election chances in his constituency
And my membership of the conservative party lapses next week, so I suppose I become homeless but I have two years to decide, as long as I keep taking my pills mind you !!!!!
On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.
It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
There have been literally hundreds of such studies. Per capita economic growth (the relevant measure for welfare) is not explained by either of the factors you mention.
Per capita isn't going to be explained by demographics for obvious reasons!
The whole point about me tagging demographics is that overall economic output is heavily influenced by the number of people of working age.
I always find the per capita vs overall debate interesting, because in the short run per capita is all you really care about. But in the long run, you need to remember the size of the total economy because countries have large nominal liabilities.
Imagine you have 100 people earning $100 year and there's $10,000 of governmental debt. So, GDP per capita is $100 and debt-to-GDP is 100%.
Now imagine there's only 25 people, earning $200/year but debt has remained constant. That means that while GDP per capita has doubled, overall GDP has halved, and debt-to-GDP has also doubled.
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.
Except the Tories actually picked their most electable leader in Boris as he proved in 2019.
The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet
I've often been on planes where the passengers clapped on landing. It just reflects their age and nationality. Italians are most likely to applaud in my experience.
I would be reluctant to get on a plane if I knew the passengers thought it necessary to clap s successful landing.
My wife and I have flown extensively world wide over the last 20 years and clapping on landing is remarkably common in our experience
It was just a joke but I do find it wierd to clap a pilot for doing what he should be able to do with his eyes closed (well maybe not that).
I'll be the first to clap when s/he lands it ok after an engine has fallen off.
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
SPD and Green are on 41.65% combined, still well short of a majority.
They would still need the Union or FDP or Linke too, probably one of the former 2 as Scholz is on the right of the SPD.
Do remember, though, that the 7% of the vote that goes to Others doesn't get seats. So it's 41.65% out of 93% - which is stil short of a majority but it's closer than it looks.
And. If Linke fall below 5% (I don't believe they will) they are almost there. And a continuation of the SPD Union is already home. But under new management.
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.
I don't exactly disagree with this but my Remain vote was based on a different (and very strong) feeling; that in order to meet the big challenges - (i) sustainable green growth (ii) equitable wealth distribution (iii) the emancipation of women (iv) racial equality - the direction of travel in the world has to be countries co-operating not competing, more internationalism less nationalism, open not closed borders; and that Brexit was the opposite of this and might presage a weakening of the EU, possibly even its collapse one day; this unique and innovative project over and failed, the continent reverting by a century to a rag bag collection of 'proud' nation states, each with their own little trade-impeding currencies, clashing foreign policies and agendas, tempted by race to the bottom economics, all generally trying to 'win' and 'beat' rather than 'improve' and 'develop', prone to aggression and bellicosity, a playground for cheap populist politicians to romp around in, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.
I started out in favour of L'Acte Unique, believing along the ground that you outline, that a greater whole would be better placed to address those issues, such as immigration and refugees and environmental issues, that are best addressed a the international or regional level, while the principle of subsidiarity would preserve the link to local politics.
Alas, subsidiarity was completely shat on. And the EU has not covered itself in glory on the big issues.
You think just us are better off out or that the whole thing is an aggregate net negative and should be unwound?
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 1h Can @GavinWilliamson advise me how I, as a parent can 'prevent the 4th wave when schools re-open', given my child isn't eligble for LFDs (primary school), vaccination, & there are no requirements for mask wearing, no supplemental ventilation in classroom of 30 from this wk?
On topic, our most social Bank Holiday weekend since 2019. Just back from an excellent afternoon tea in a fine London Hotel - not MY favourite but Mrs Stodge likes it and her opinion is not without influence in these matters.
My favourite venue so far is the Corinthia but I remain to be convinced there isn't somewhere better.
Nicely busy without being overwhelming and good to have a decent tube service unlike on Saturday when a number of lines were suffering due to "train cancellations" or " shortage of control staff". Is the labour shortage spreading beyond those who want more of a working experience than being yelled at by a wannabe Gordon Ramsay in a small dingy kitchen.
Discovered an excellent Korean fried chicken place at Canary Wharf - still very quiet over there even for a weekend but not as bad as a couple of Mondays when, at 1.30pm, it was quieter than a Sunday morning.
I read tube passenger numbers have recovered to just over half pre-Covid levels - I do think weekday off-peak traffic is still very light even though weekend leisure traffic has recovered.
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.
Except the Tories actually picked their most electable leader in Boris as he proved in 2019.
The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet
Yes, Scholz wouldn't be winning if the CDU/CSU had chosen Söder and the Greens had chosen Habeck.
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.
Except the Tories actually picked their most electable leader in Boris as he proved in 2019.
The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet
All just your opinion.
Johnson won in 2019; that doesn't prove he was the Tories most electable leader. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, we'll never know. Hunt could have won a 150 seat majority. Who knows?
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 1h Can @GavinWilliamson advise me how I, as a parent can 'prevent the 4th wave when schools re-open', given my child isn't eligble for LFDs (primary school), vaccination, & there are no requirements for mask wearing, no supplemental ventilation in classroom of 30 from this wk?
We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.
We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.
It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.
To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.
I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.
To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.
Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.
I don't exactly disagree with this but my Remain vote was based on a different (and very strong) feeling; that in order to meet the big challenges - (i) sustainable green growth (ii) equitable wealth distribution (iii) the emancipation of women (iv) racial equality - the direction of travel in the world has to be countries co-operating not competing, more internationalism less nationalism, open not closed borders; and that Brexit was the opposite of this and might presage a weakening of the EU, possibly even its collapse one day; this unique and innovative project over and failed, the continent reverting by a century to a rag bag collection of 'proud' nation states, each with their own little trade-impeding currencies, clashing foreign policies and agendas, tempted by race to the bottom economics, all generally trying to 'win' and 'beat' rather than 'improve' and 'develop', prone to aggression and bellicosity, a playground for cheap populist politicians to romp around in, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.
Are you saying in point (iii) that, in the U.K. / developed economies, emancipation of women is a great challenge? Rather strange comment.
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
SPD and Green are on 41.65% combined, still well short of a majority.
They would still need the Union or FDP or Linke too, probably one of the former 2 as Scholz is on the right of the SPD.
Do remember, though, that the 7% of the vote that goes to Others doesn't get seats. So it's 41.65% out of 93% - which is stil short of a majority but it's closer than it looks.
And. If Linke fall below 5% (I don't believe they will) they are almost there. And a continuation of the SPD Union is already home. But under new management.
Ideologically is there actually any difference at all between Scholz and Laschet? The SPD already hold the Finance Ministry, the Foreign Ministry and the Justice Ministry so if they just get the Chancellorship as well and the Grand Coalition continues but with the SPD in the Chancellor's residence not the Union and maybe the Greens added to the mix as well I really don't see what difference it makes at all to German domestic or foreign policy.
If there was an SPD, Green and Linke government it might shift Germany left but the main reason Scholz is gaining votes from the CDU is he is a fiscal conservative on the right of the SPD and so more likely to favour a deal with the Union again or the FDP than one with Linke
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.
Except the Tories actually picked their most electable leader in Boris as he proved in 2019.
The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet
All just your opinion.
Johnson won in 2019; that doesn't prove he was the Tories most electable leader. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, we'll never know. Hunt could have won a 150 seat majority. Who knows?
Not just his opinion (and I rarely agree with HYUFD).
There's plenty of opinion polling data, as well as logical reasoning, to say that Hunt would have done worse than Johnson.
How would Hunt have united the Brexiteer vote given he was prepared to voluntarily extend Article 50 and not prepared to leave without a deal.
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.
Except the Tories actually picked their most electable leader in Boris as he proved in 2019.
The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet
All just your opinion.
Johnson won in 2019; that doesn't prove he was the Tories most electable leader. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, we'll never know. Hunt could have won a 150 seat majority. Who knows?
The BXP would still have stood candidates in Tory seats against Hunt, Hunt would also not have made the gains in the Redwall Boris did although he might have held a few Remain seats like Putney and St Albans.
Overall though Hunt would not have won the majority Boris did and may not even have won a majority at all, ideologically Hunt was little different from Theresa May
I told you that Afghanistan wouldn't damage the Conservatives in the short term.
Johnson sensibly kept his head down, and the BBC narrative has been one of mission accomplished, so despite what ex military are saying no harm done.
I actually believe the evacuation, and especially the safe return of our military (unlike the US) has to be considered a success in itself.
Also the constant demands for Raab to go seem to have failed, though he is likely to have damaged his promotion chances in the party and even his re-election chances in his constituency
And my membership of the conservative party lapses next week, so I suppose I become homeless but I have two years to decide, as long as I keep taking my pills mind you !!!!!
Don't forget the dogs and cats
Actually even that seems to have passed off without too much furore, but then we are a nation of animal lovers, ask any member of my family who are all devoted to animals
Updated Canada poll tracker has the Conservatives with a clear average popular vote lead now, 33.4% to 31.5% for the Liberals and 19.8% for the NDP and 6% for the BQ.
I told you that Afghanistan wouldn't damage the Conservatives in the short term.
Johnson sensibly kept his head down, and the BBC narrative has been one of mission accomplished, so despite what ex military are saying no harm done.
I actually believe the evacuation, and especially the safe return of our military (unlike the US) has to be considered a success in itself.
Also the constant demands for Raab to go seem to have failed, though he is likely to have damaged his promotion chances in the party and even his re-election chances in his constituency
And my membership of the conservative party lapses next week, so I suppose I become homeless but I have two years to decide, as long as I keep taking my pills mind you !!!!!
Don't forget the dogs and cats
Actually even that seems to have passed off without too much furore, but then we are a nation of animal lovers, ask any member of my family who are all devoted to animals
Worth 5 points to the Conservatives? Clever old Boris.
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
SPD and Green are on 41.65% combined, still well short of a majority.
They would still need the Union or FDP or Linke too, probably one of the former 2 as Scholz is on the right of the SPD.
Do remember, though, that the 7% of the vote that goes to Others doesn't get seats. So it's 41.65% out of 93% - which is stil short of a majority but it's closer than it looks.
And. If Linke fall below 5% (I don't believe they will) they are almost there. And a continuation of the SPD Union is already home. But under new management.
Ideologically is there actually any difference at all between Scholz and Laschet? The SPD already hold the Finance Ministry, the Foreign Ministry and the Justice Ministry so if they just get the Chancellorship as well and the Grand Coalition continues but with the SPD in the Chancellor's residence not the Union and maybe the Greens added to the mix as well I really don't see what difference it makes at all to German domestic or foreign policy.
If there was an SPD, Green and Linke government it might shift Germany left but the main reason Scholz is gaining votes from the CDU is he is a fiscal conservative on the right of the SPD and so more likely to favour a deal with the Union again or the FDP than one with Linke
Probably so. Equally, in Canada, a Tory minority and a Liberal majority would be much of a muchness. Just change of face at the top.
Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.
Except the Tories actually picked their most electable leader in Boris as he proved in 2019.
The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet
All just your opinion.
Johnson won in 2019; that doesn't prove he was the Tories most electable leader. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, we'll never know. Hunt could have won a 150 seat majority. Who knows?
The BXP would still have stood candidates in Tory seats against Hunt, Hunt would also not have made the gains in the Redwall Boris did although he might have held a few Remain seats like Putney and St Albans.
Overall though Hunt would not have won the majority Boris did and may not even have won a majority at all, ideologically Hunt was little different from Theresa May
I doubt that Hunt would have held Putney or St Albans (and plenty of other similar seats too).
Yes he might irritate Remainers less, but Remainers were still overwhelmingly anti-Tory by that point even under May. Not many Lib Dems leaners would have been won back by Hunt - but he would have lost many of the Brexiteer voters who would have gone to the BXP. Which would be a significant minority even in places like Putney etc
Although more realistically there would have been no election, since he'd have had no poll lead, as he'd never have won back the BXP voters. So instead he'd have remained in Theresa May's Article 50 extending purgatory . . . probably until the pandemic hit.
Indeed likely thanks to the pandemic too, the chances are Article 50 could have been punted into the long grass and the Tories could now be consistently third in the polls.
Comments
That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.
So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?
When Mike first asked me to edit PB in his absence I didn't know the choice of pictures for thread headers would give me so much joy.
They criticise HMQ, largely on hindsight, but you have to ask do the the public think HMG have failings but doubt Labour would do any better
We have placed frictions on our trading performance, and immigration both of which had real positive productivity and growth effects.
We are also already experiencing a big drop in FDI which also supported productivity growth and thereby, eventually, GDP growth.
Yes Boris, I'm coming.
If farmers don't want the harvest to rot, then they'll need to offer more than minimum wage. Which seems fair enough, picking fields seems like gruelling manual labour and I don't see why farmers should be self-entitled to fill that for minimum wage.
If farmers decide they don't want the harvest to rot, and they offer better wages as a result, then doesn't that prove that importing people from the third world [subsidised often by offering in-work benefits too] was undercutting our domestic wages?
To put it another way if the UK (or eg Italy instead of the UK) had not signed Maastricht and had Brexit in 1993 instead, are you suggesting that we'd have had 0.5% less annual growth, compounded, since 1993? Where would that put us now?
If you were to look at output per person of working age, there's actually been surprisingly little difference between the major economies worldwide in the last decade or two. Indeed, the best performing major country on "per person of working age" since 2000 is actually Japan - which goes to show how much demographics can really shaft you.
'It's just a little prick, you dick'
Ceteris paribus, of course.
Same issue NZ would have had, were it not to have signed trade deals with China et al.
Laughable.
Our long term growth rate is ~ 2% p.a..
So the single market was worth a quarter of our growth rate!
You haven't got a clue about growth. It is almost entirely accounted for by productivity change (i.e. technological change) and has hovered around 2% since WWII.
Bank profit for now or let ride until it gets to evens?
CON: 41% (-2)
LAB: 33% (-)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
GRN: 5% (-1)
REFUK: 4% (+1)
via
@RedfieldWilton
, 29 Aug
Chgs. w/ 23 Aug
Well as I'm saying I don't see anything in EU, UK, Italy or other data to show such an extra 0.5% compounded growth since 1993.
Indeed NZ is an interesting counterpoint, they show what freedom to operate as an independent nation which can sign its own deals and look after its own interests can do.
If you were to do a chart of GDP per capita for the Euro Area, UK and New Zealand setting 1993 as 100 then its quite self-evident that the EU has no growth premium in the past nearly three decades.
Japan
Australia
US
Canada
(And possibly South Korea)
So before you start, you're already suffering from the dreaded "beware of small datasets" problem.
Then, of those four, you have two which are resource economies. (Yes, Australia is a resource economy.) And resources went through a boom in the last quarter century - which meant massive investment as well as big rises in exports. By contrast the EU and Japan were resource importers, and therefore saw economic drag from rises in commodity prices.
Basically, it's complex.
Edit to add: I forgot New Zealand. Which is also a resources driven economy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/i-went-to-a-play-written-by-ai-it-was-like-looking-in-a-circus-mirror/ar-AANQHfw
Science, technology and knowledge leads to it generally.
And trade isn't and shouldn't be just within your own continent. Indeed most British trade isn't within our own continent. New Zealand which has grown considerably faster than Europe for decades doesn't trade with even a single nation within a thousand kilometres of it, not one.
Lab Conference incoming
Electrifying speech on the cards
In the World Transformed event at least
Keir Starmer (Lab)
Positive: 25.8% (-1.2)
Negative: 44.4% (+5.3)
I mean, they might - but as a start you’d need a government that actually confesses the reality of some pretty basic economics and finds alternative sources of growth.
Carrie is working her magic....
Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.
Normally the ratings for the LotO would fall when the government were doing well.
If they're falling when the government is struggling ...
As usual rammed full of rubbish short on quality and high on price.
The public don't have a clue as to what Labour would even try to do.
It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.
Johnson sensibly kept his head down, and the BBC narrative has been one of mission accomplished, so despite what ex military are saying no harm done.
I don't think anyone is surprised Corbyn has no imagination. He's essentially parroted the same (discredited) lines for 50 years. There was nothing in either of his manifestoes that was new or would surprise anyone on the upside.
But Starmer doesn't really seem to have much imagination either. Where's the energy from the troika of Blair, Brown and Mandelson that drove them to power in the 1990s? Where, for the matter of that, is the urbanity of Cameron, Osborne and Gove or the radicalism of Thatcher, Joseph and Howe?
True, he's been unlucky, but some more invention would be appreciated.
Even if he got it wrong it would get people talking.
This PB piece says the worst net score for a LotO who became PM was Cameron’s -22. Sir Keir has more than doubled that
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/05/point-of-no-return/
Labour don't have a clue as to what Labour would even try to do.
EDIT: Oh Big_G beat me to it!
They would still need the Union or FDP or Linke too, probably one of the former 2 as Scholz is on the right of the SPD.
Indeed this may explain the slowdown in Western economies since the 90s (from the post war boom).
Shocking moment furious anti-vaccine mob ambushes BBC journalist and tells him 'the nooses are ready'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9940527/Shocking-moment-furious-anti-vaccine-mob-ambush-BBC-journalist-tell-nooses-ready.html
Alas, subsidiarity was completely shat on. And the EU has not covered itself in glory on the big issues.
Also the constant demands for Raab to go seem to have failed, though he is likely to have damaged his promotion chances in the party and even his re-election chances in his constituency
And my membership of the conservative party lapses next week, so I suppose I become homeless but I have two years to decide, as long as I keep taking my pills mind you !!!!!
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zz337#28f80e92
Curiously only at 24,500' - which is very well below ceiling.....and well after takeoff...
They thought they could achieve centuries of integration in years, just by bypassing localism. Since the Boni in the various member states were signed up to The Project, what could possibly go wrong?
Last week, Jurgen Klopp urged supporters to put an end to the offensive chants after Chelsea midfielder Billy Gilmour, on loan at Norwich, was targeted with the words 'Chelsea rent boy' during Liverpool's 3-0 win at Carrow Road on August 14.
Liverpool immediately branded the chant as "offensive and inappropriate" - something they also did in April 2019 when it was heard widely at Anfield during their 2-0 win over Chelsea.
I wonder why this is tolerated? I suspect racist chanting would result in games being played behind closed doors.
The whole point about me tagging demographics is that overall economic output is heavily influenced by the number of people of working age.
I always find the per capita vs overall debate interesting, because in the short run per capita is all you really care about. But in the long run, you need to remember the size of the total economy because countries have large nominal liabilities.
Imagine you have 100 people earning $100 year and there's $10,000 of governmental debt. So, GDP per capita is $100 and debt-to-GDP is 100%.
Now imagine there's only 25 people, earning $200/year but debt has remained constant. That means that while GDP per capita has doubled, overall GDP has halved, and debt-to-GDP has also doubled.
The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet
I'll be the first to clap when s/he lands it ok after an engine has fallen off.
Shaun Lintern
@ShaunLintern
Government says parents responsible for preventing new Covid wave when schools reopen
Deepti Gurdasani
@dgurdasani1
·
1h
Can
@GavinWilliamson
advise me how I, as a parent can 'prevent the 4th wave when schools re-open', given my child isn't eligble for LFDs (primary school), vaccination, & there are no requirements for mask wearing, no supplemental ventilation in classroom of 30 from this wk?
On topic, our most social Bank Holiday weekend since 2019. Just back from an excellent afternoon tea in a fine London Hotel - not MY favourite but Mrs Stodge likes it and her opinion is not without influence in these matters.
My favourite venue so far is the Corinthia but I remain to be convinced there isn't somewhere better.
Nicely busy without being overwhelming and good to have a decent tube service unlike on Saturday when a number of lines were suffering due to "train cancellations" or " shortage of control staff". Is the labour shortage spreading beyond those who want more of a working experience than being yelled at by a wannabe Gordon Ramsay in a small dingy kitchen.
Discovered an excellent Korean fried chicken place at Canary Wharf - still very quiet over there even for a weekend but not as bad as a couple of Mondays when, at 1.30pm, it was quieter than a Sunday morning.
I read tube passenger numbers have recovered to just over half pre-Covid levels - I do think weekday off-peak traffic is still very light even though weekend leisure traffic has recovered.
Johnson won in 2019; that doesn't prove he was the Tories most electable leader. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, we'll never know. Hunt could have won a 150 seat majority. Who knows?
The parents get vaccinated themselves.
If there was an SPD, Green and Linke government it might shift Germany left but the main reason Scholz is gaining votes from the CDU is he is a fiscal conservative on the right of the SPD and so more likely to favour a deal with the Union again or the FDP than one with Linke
There's plenty of opinion polling data, as well as logical reasoning, to say that Hunt would have done worse than Johnson.
How would Hunt have united the Brexiteer vote given he was prepared to voluntarily extend Article 50 and not prepared to leave without a deal.
That said, Labour and Starmer in particular do need to get themselves noticed on the news agenda.
Overall though Hunt would not have won the majority Boris did and may not even have won a majority at all, ideologically Hunt was little different from Theresa May
However the Liberals are still narrowly ahead on projected seats, with 143 to 130 for the Conservatives, 38 for the NDP and 26 for the BQ
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
Equally, in Canada, a Tory minority and a Liberal majority would be much of a muchness. Just change of face at the top.
Yes he might irritate Remainers less, but Remainers were still overwhelmingly anti-Tory by that point even under May. Not many Lib Dems leaners would have been won back by Hunt - but he would have lost many of the Brexiteer voters who would have gone to the BXP. Which would be a significant minority even in places like Putney etc
Although more realistically there would have been no election, since he'd have had no poll lead, as he'd never have won back the BXP voters. So instead he'd have remained in Theresa May's Article 50 extending purgatory . . . probably until the pandemic hit.
Indeed likely thanks to the pandemic too, the chances are Article 50 could have been punted into the long grass and the Tories could now be consistently third in the polls.