Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Who is paying for the decommissioning at the end of the plant's lifetime btw ?
On wind, I'm now in favour - although AONBs should be avoided where possible for turbines... But in regular fields I have no issue with them.
The owners of the nuclear plant have to agree a plan with the government for decommissioning and long term storage of waste. That was part of original deal agreed with EDF. The plan will be revised over the lifetime of the plant and nominally means all known costs will be funded at all times duringthe project.
The government (ie the taxpayer) carries the risk though
HPC is also unable to get insurance from the private sector, so the UK government is carrying the risk of any problems - you know leaks, explosions, etc.
If someone attacks a pregnant women killing the viable foetus they get charged with the offence of Child Destruction. Ergo the foetus has legal rights.
And is also defined as a child in law before birth which ought to give pause for thought.
It's akin to criminal damage. It's the owner (mother) of the car (fetus) that has the rights, not the car (fetus) itself.
"... I don't have ideological objections to nuclear power, but the economics are basket case ..."
Yes and, possibly, no. The UK has a huge stockpile of plutonium (I read somewhere the largest in the world) and we have no real plan for how to deal and with it. We are also adding to that stockpile every year and will continue to do so with reactors likely Hinkley C.
It may well be cheaper to develop the Moltex reactors to "burn" that plutonium, turning it into electricity, than to store it safely for the next n thousand years.
Please don't burn plutonium*.
* Yes, I know you weren't seriously suggesting that.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
HPC's contract is inflation linked, while the wind contracts are fixed in absolute terms. If inflation runs at 2% a year, then when HPC comes on line then price gap will be less than 10%, and within about five years it'll be the more expensive option.
IIRC the non-nuclear strike price period starts from the contract being signed and normally last 15 years. If the generator delays building the plant, he will benefit from the strike price for a shorter period. The Hinkley Point strike price period starts on first production of electricity and lasts for 35 years. We could still be committed to it in 50 years time!
Of course it may never produce electricity. In which case the French and Chinese will have subsidised a make work scheme for the British construction industry.
If someone attacks a pregnant women killing the viable foetus they get charged with the offence of Child Destruction. Ergo the foetus has legal rights.
And is also defined as a child in law before birth which ought to give pause for thought.
It's akin to criminal damage. It's the owner (mother) of the car (fetus) that has the rights, not the car (fetus) itself.
Not true, because the mother can be convicted of Child Destruction, an owner cannot be convicted of Criminal Damage to their own vehicle, this was explicitly mentioned in the passage of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, the clue is also in the name.
Anyone tell me the what the price of natural gas will be in 2035 ? Thanks.
Indeed. Actually 2060 (ten years development plus 35 year fixed price supply).
So why would we want the inflexibility of a decades long nuclear deal when we can get 15 year contracts (diminishing in price as more get taken on) or no contracts at all with gas?
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.
* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.
I don't think those numbers are directly comparable.
Although nuclear plants, like all power stations, cannot operate with 100% uptime, their downtime for maintenance purposes can be (and is) planned to coincide with periods of lower demand, e.g. the summer. Power from wind turbines, on the other hand, is naturally intermittent, so your 66% (or whatever) is purely an average with no control over the timing of peaks and troughs (although it does tend to be windier in the winter, which helps).
While I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power in general or HPC in particular, I don't see how we can meet demands for a reliable electricity supply and low carbon emissions without a substantial nuclear contribution to the mix, at least in the short to medium term.
Anyone tell me the what the price of natural gas will be in 2035 ? Thanks.
Natural gas where?
If the price is above $8, then there is a huge amount in the UK that can be extracted. We have massive gas resources - but it is simply not economic to drill it given current LNG contract rates.
I want to put the massive amount of natural gas discovered in context. 15 years ago, Cheniere Energy was building an LNG import terminal on the US Gulf coast because domestic production was dropping. Now, US is set to be the world's largest exporter of LNG inside the next five years.
Canada has made similar gas discoveries, it just doesn't have the LNG terminals to export it yet. Australia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Papua New Guinea: all of these have made discoveries of a scale that is almost incomprehensible. Australia has more LNG plants at FEED stage or under construction than the entire world LNG export capacity in 2010!
And don't forget, there is nothing unique about America's rocks. The technology that unlocked shale gas in the US will be as appropriate to use in Russia, Africa, Argentina and the like as it was in Texas and Louisiana.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
OK. Some UK electricity facts.
Currently, UK electricity demand is 32.5GW. Demand peaks at a little over 40GW these days. (Overall demand has trended down for some time, for various reasons - better insulation, more efficient appliances, the move from incandescent to LED/CFL for lighting, the rise of laptops and end of traditional PCs, and a smaller industrial base.)
There are about 20GW of UK coal plants, which are largely sitting idle right now (3GW in on). Coal has been hammered by...
The rise of CCGTs (combined cycle gas turbines), which are (a) more efficient than coal plants, (b) cost less to build, (c) are more flexible/reliable, and (d) have much lower operational costs. Historically, the UK's gas plant was used to supply peaking power, but the collapse in the price of oil and gas has meant is has largely supplanted coal in the UK. There is just north of 20GW of CCGTs in the UK, although some older plants are currently mothballed. Right now, 17GW of CCGTs are on-line.
Wind currently tops out at just north of 7GW, but realistically runs in the 0.5-3GW range.
Nuclear is about a fifth of our generating capacity at just under 10GW installed. But, and here's the big but, nuclear is very rarely all available. Right now, about 75% of the UK's nuclear is on-line which is about par for the course. I would be extremely surprised (astounded really) if HPC's uptime matched our existing nuclear in its first five years of operation.
Now for the smaller parts of power generation: Hydro and pumped can provide up to 3GW of peaking power. Realistically, assuming that pumped storage is refilled every night, it can provide 1.5GW or so during every peak period.
Then there is biomass, which is a fairly constant 1.4GW (rising to 2GW when new builds are complete).
Finally, we have pure peaking: there are around 4GW of open cycle gas turbines (basically jet engines) that can step in in the case of emergencies, and another 1.5GW of oil fired power plant.
In theory, we have about 70GW of power plant. Even after retirements, and assuming the wind is not not blowing at all, we have about a 10GW of 'spare'. If you want to increase that, why not use a cheap, flexible power source like natural gas? (And if you're worried about security of supply, surely you're better off increasing the UK's indigenous gas supply rather than building expensive, unreliable nuclear.)
And how many nuclear plants are due to be decommissioned in the next 15 years? And how many wind farms would you need to replace them?
Solar. In 15 years solar will be embarrassingly cheap.
Any views from our resident financial experts? http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/10/howard-flight-negotiating-a-brexit-passport-to-success-for-the-city-of-london.html " If EU entities were required to establish subsidiaries in the UK, this would be extremely costly. There are over 70 EU banks in London under branch “passports” and thus not under Prudential Regulation Authority regulation. " "Moodys have already argued that the City can cope reasonably without Single Market Passporting, rather using Equivalence Passporting. Where there are specific country requirements, which may limit the scope of Equivalence Passporting, the larger investment banks can surely use their subsidiary operations within the EU to book the business, with the work being done in London."
Solar. In 15 years solar will be embarrassingly cheap.
I was in Australia a few weeks ago with the head of one of the Victoria power distribution company. The government removed solar subsidies, but it's so cheap there now that people are still putting it on their roofs, because it reduces their electricity bill. He called it "Behind the Meter Solar".
If someone attacks a pregnant women killing the viable foetus they get charged with the offence of Child Destruction. Ergo the foetus has legal rights.
And is also defined as a child in law before birth which ought to give pause for thought.
It's akin to criminal damage. It's the owner (mother) of the car (fetus) that has the rights, not the car (fetus) itself.
Not true, because the mother can be convicted of Child Destruction, an owner cannot be convicted of Criminal Damage to their own vehicle, this was explicitly mentioned in the passage of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, the clue is also in the name.
So more like the rights a Alpine Catchfly has - you can be fined for stomping on it, even if it's in your own field.
Hillary Clinton has opened up a six-point lead over Donald Trump, erasing the New York billionaire's slim national edge with five weeks until Election Day, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll of likely voters.
Clinton leads Trump 42-36 in the four-way race for the White House. Gary Johnson garnered 9 percent, Jill Stein got 2 percent and 10 percent remain undecided. It's a dramatic bump for Clinton: Trump led by one point before the debate, and in a POLITICO/Morning Consult survey conducted immediately after the debate, Clinton led by four points.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.
* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.
I don't think those numbers are directly comparable.
Although nuclear plants, like all power stations, cannot operate with 100% uptime, their downtime for maintenance purposes can be (and is) planned to coincide with periods of lower demand, e.g. the summer. Power from wind turbines, on the other hand, is naturally intermittent, so your 66% (or whatever) is purely an average with no control over the timing of peaks and troughs (although it does tend to be windier in the winter, which helps).
While I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power in general or HPC in particular, I don't see how we can meet demands for a reliable electricity supply and low carbon emissions without a substantial nuclear contribution to the mix, at least in the short to medium term.
1. HPC will not be available in the short-to-medium term. 2. Nuclear plants are designed to run at 95% uptime and actually achieve 80%. The gap is unscheduled downtime.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
HPC's contract is inflation linked, while the wind contracts are fixed in absolute terms. If inflation runs at 2% a year, then when HPC comes on line then price gap will be less than 10%, and within about five years it'll be the more expensive option.
IIRC the non-nuclear strike price period starts from the contract being signed and normally last 15 years. If the generator delays building the plant, he will benefit from the strike price for a shorter period. The Hinkley Point strike price period starts on first production of electricity and lasts for 35 years. We could still be committed to it in 50 years time!
Of course it may never produce electricity. In which case the French and Chinese will have subsidised a make work scheme for the British construction industry.
I suspect we'll find the French and the Chinese borrowed the money from RBS!
Anyone tell me the what the price of natural gas will be in 2035 ? Thanks.
Natural gas where?
If the price is above $8, then there is a huge amount in the UK that can be extracted. We have massive gas resources - but it is simply not economic to drill it given current LNG contract rates.
I want to put the massive amount of natural gas discovered in context. 15 years ago, Cheniere Energy was building an LNG import terminal on the US Gulf coast because domestic production was dropping. Now, US is set to be the world's largest exporter of LNG inside the next five years.
Canada has made similar gas discoveries, it just doesn't have the LNG terminals to export it yet. Australia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Papua New Guinea: all of these have made discoveries of a scale that is almost incomprehensible. Australia has more LNG plants at FEED stage or under construction than the entire world LNG export capacity in 2010!
And don't forget, there is nothing unique about America's rocks. The technology that unlocked shale gas in the US will be as appropriate to use in Russia, Africa, Argentina and the like as it was in Texas and Louisiana.
If we're serious about substantially reducing carbon emissions, gas cannot be more than a temporary stopgap as oil and coal are phased out and storage technologies and demand management schemes are developed.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
Labour is a tiny part of the cost of a car, so devaluation only helps to a small extent.
The problem is that the automotive supply chain is very cross border, so steel might go from a French plant to a UK subsystem supplier, back to a plant in Germany for making a gearbox, then to Nissan in Sunderland, before the final car goes to Swedish customer. If tariffs are imposed at every stage, it would crucify the UK car industry because - unlike our continental peers - we simply don't have enough of the supply chain in country.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.
* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.
I don't think those numbers are directly comparable.
Although nuclear plants, like all power stations, cannot operate with 100% uptime, their downtime for maintenance purposes can be (and is) planned to coincide with periods of lower demand, e.g. the summer. Power from wind turbines, on the other hand, is naturally intermittent, so your 66% (or whatever) is purely an average with no control over the timing of peaks and troughs (although it does tend to be windier in the winter, which helps).
While I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power in general or HPC in particular, I don't see how we can meet demands for a reliable electricity supply and low carbon emissions without a substantial nuclear contribution to the mix, at least in the short to medium term.
1. HPC will not be available in the short-to-medium term. 2. Nuclear plants are designed to run at 95% uptime and actually achieve 80%. The gap is unscheduled downtime.
1. By medium term, I was thinking of the next 50 years or so. 2. We have multiple nuclear plants; they are not likely to all break down at the same time.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.
* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.
I don't think those numbers are directly comparable.
Although nuclear plants, like all power stations, cannot operate with 100% uptime, their downtime for maintenance purposes can be (and is) planned to coincide with periods of lower demand, e.g. the summer. Power from wind turbines, on the other hand, is naturally intermittent, so your 66% (or whatever) is purely an average with no control over the timing of peaks and troughs (although it does tend to be windier in the winter, which helps).
While I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power in general or HPC in particular, I don't see how we can meet demands for a reliable electricity supply and low carbon emissions without a substantial nuclear contribution to the mix, at least in the short to medium term.
I think Mr. Max hit on the head up-thread. The capability of industrial scale storage of electricity is now looking more and more realistic. If that comes about then the game changes entirely. Will it come about? If so in what timeframe?
The timeframe for industrial level electrical storage is probably now shorter than the the timeframe for building Hinkley C. Of course, it might not be in which case we need a fall back position. I would suggest that we have two that do not rely on massive projects that are designed to produce dangerous elements that we have no plan to deal with. Gas is certain, proven technology and the second is reactors of the sort being developed by Moltex (smaller, quicker to build and will "use up" our existing stockpile of plutonium).
For HMG to have committed to HPC seems to me to be an act of great folly and, I think, the nuclear industry in its present state is doomed.
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.
I would imagine little as he's no longer leader.
In fact, this is so backward an approach, I am not going to mock you and invite you to go full bore down this route. Use it as your only line of attack for the next three years.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.
I would imagine little as he's no longer leader.
In fact, this is so backward an approach, I am not going to mock you and invite you to go full bore down this route. Use it as your only line of attack for the next three years.
Please.
How about -' They lied - and lied - and lied again!''So why should we believe them now'?
Can someone explain to me why we're so obsessed with car manufacturing?
Because of the non-negligeable risk one or more of the car manufacturers will say, we're not building cars in the UK any more, thanks to Brexit. It's a lot more noticeable and politically more potent than all the other companies who decide to invest outside of the UK because it is no longer part of the EU.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.
I would imagine little as he's no longer leader.
In fact, this is so backward an approach, I am not going to mock you and invite you to go full bore down this route. Use it as your only line of attack for the next three years.
Please.
How about -' They lied - and lied - and lied again!''So why should we believe them now'?
There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
I think origination rules on items that are exported and reimported as components in finished goods and how much that affects the tariffs on the finished goods is more complicated than that. However, I agree. I don't think we will have tariffs on industrial goods to the EU.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
Long before the Referendum, and at a time when it seemed impossible for a vote to leave, Ford moved some of its manufacturing from England, inside the EU, to Turkey, outside the EU, and JLR decided to move some of its manufacturing to Eastern Europe. I am less than convinced that the UK's best interests will be served by pandering to motor car manufacturers.
Solar. In 15 years solar will be embarrassingly cheap.
I was in Australia a few weeks ago with the head of one of the Victoria power distribution company. The government removed solar subsidies, but it's so cheap there now that people are still putting it on their roofs, because it reduces their electricity bill. He called it "Behind the Meter Solar".
Solar is already cheap enough (in the right place) to embarrass EDF - were they capable of embarrassment... http://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/23/jaw-dropping-fall-solar-prices-will-change-energy-markets/ The solar bids must also be causing some soul-searching at EdF. Its offer of $US25.33/MWh for the Abu Dhabi solar plant is just over one fifth of the price (£92.50, or $US120/MWh) it demanded for the new nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C in the UK…
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.
Fighting the next election against a leader who left office four years earlier will be a tough ask. There is more mileage in attacking the changed timetable of the deficit-reduction strategy but even there, the Tories can easily counter that (1) it was necessary to act strongly at the time so as to give a clear indication of intent to those lending, and (2) the revisions are in response to events and that you can criticise that the government should have cut less, or that it has missed its targets, but not both.
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.
I would imagine little as he's no longer leader.
In fact, this is so backward an approach, I am not going to mock you and invite you to go full bore down this route. Use it as your only line of attack for the next three years.
Please.
How about -' They lied - and lied - and lied again!''So why should we believe them now'?
Pots and kettles come to mind!
It would still be a useful line of attack in the next election campaign.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
I am less than convinced that the UK's best interests will be served by pandering to motor car manufacturers.
Least of all ones who promised the end of days if we didn't join the Euro....
Can someone explain to me why we're so obsessed with car manufacturing?
Because of the non-negligeable risk one or more of the car manufacturers will say, we're not building cars in the UK any more, thanks to Brexit. It's a lot more noticeable and politically more potent than all the other companies who decide to invest outside of the UK because it is no longer part of the EU.
I wasn't thinking just in the context of Brexit. I'm thinking more generally. Why did the government give me £2,000 towards a new car back in 2010? I can't remember if I had to buy a British built car (I did - a Corsa from Ellesmere Port). But it wouldn't surprise me if I could have purchased a French car. WRT to Brexit I can understand the concern about the financial services industry, but car manufacturing seems to me to be a bit of a status symbol.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
Long before the Referendum, and at a time when it seemed impossible for a vote to leave, Ford moved some of its manufacturing from England, inside the EU, to Turkey, outside the EU, and JLR decided to move some of its manufacturing to Eastern Europe. I am less than convinced that the UK's best interests will be served by pandering to motor car manufacturers.
Turkey is in the CET area, but I agree that pandering to a single industry isn't a good bet. That goes for the City as well, to a lesser degree given huge the tax contribution. The worst part of the Turkey move was that Ford received development loans from the EU to finance the move. Mental.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
Long before the Referendum, and at a time when it seemed impossible for a vote to leave, Ford moved some of its manufacturing from England, inside the EU, to Turkey, outside the EU, and JLR decided to move some of its manufacturing to Eastern Europe. I am less than convinced that the UK's best interests will be served by pandering to motor car manufacturers.
As I said below, I don't see trade in machines and chemicals as controversial. The negotiations will be about agriculture, services, standards, FoM and WTO schedules.
Can someone explain to me why we're so obsessed with car manufacturing?
Because of the non-negligeable risk one or more of the car manufacturers will say, we're not building cars in the UK any more, thanks to Brexit. It's a lot more noticeable and politically more potent than all the other companies who decide to invest outside of the UK because it is no longer part of the EU.
I wasn't thinking just in the context of Brexit. I'm thinking more generally. Why did the government give me £2,000 towards a new car back in 2010? I can't remember if I had to buy a British built car (I did - a Corsa from Ellesmere Port). But it wouldn't surprise me if I could have purchased a French car. WRT to Brexit I can understand the concern about the financial services industry, but car manufacturing seems to me to be a bit of a status symbol.
You're right. We import most of our cars anyway. We don't do as well on industrial products and exports as Germany, so I guess it's a question of whether we aim to do as well as we can and improve or just give up.
WRT to Brexit I can understand the concern about the financial services industry, but car manufacturing seems to me to be a bit of a status symbol.
A status symbol in an industry that is ripe for disruption by electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles. Quite a few of the companies wanting favours probably won't be around in a couple of decades time. If we are going to dish out the dosh we should look very carefully at to who and to where it goes.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
They are only affected if sales substantially decline. Very few businesses will relocate in whole or in part to the UK from the rEU post-Brexit. The reverse scenario is a lot more possible. Tariffs and increased red tape will not create more jobs or increase investment over here, but they may well do in the EU.
WRT to Brexit I can understand the concern about the financial services industry, but car manufacturing seems to me to be a bit of a status symbol.
A status symbol in an industry that is ripe for disruption by electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles. Quite a few of the companies wanting favours probably won't be around in a couple of decades time. If we are going to dish out the dosh we should look very carefully at to who and to where it goes.
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.
Fighting the next election against a leader who left office four years earlier will be a tough ask. There is more mileage in attacking the changed timetable of the deficit-reduction strategy but even there, the Tories can easily counter that (1) it was necessary to act strongly at the time so as to give a clear indication of intent to those lending, and (2) the revisions are in response to events and that you can criticise that the government should have cut less, or that it has missed its targets, but not both.
Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.' Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort. Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
They are only affected if sales substantially decline. Very few businesses will relocate in whole or in part to the UK from the rEU post-Brexit. The reverse scenario is a lot more possible. Tariffs and increased red tape will not create more jobs or increase investment over here, but they may well do in the EU.
It isn't about a relocation of business but instead a reduction of volume. Tariffs will reduce the volume if trade between the UK and EU.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
All good points, although I think the time where Eastern Europe kowtowed to Germany have been and gone.
Germany is still massively influential, obviously, but the emergence of new sub-blocs has made once-quiescent countries much bolder. Exacerbated by Merkel's immigration faux pas, I think, given the countries which the refugees transited are the same ones which export their labour over here!
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
snip ....' etc.
Fighting the next election against a leader who left office four years earlier will be a tough ask. There is more mileage in attacking the changed timetable of the deficit-reduction strategy but even there, the Tories can easily counter that (1) it was necessary to act strongly at the time so as to give a clear indication of intent to those lending, and (2) the revisions are in response to events and that you can criticise that the government should have cut less, or that it has missed its targets, but not both.
Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.' Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort. Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
Labour can seek to highlight what they like. They will lose under Corbyn. The public has made up its mind.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
The FPD would get the first call, assuming they make the 5% barrier, which they would were the election today.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.
Fighting the next election against a leader who left office four years earlier will be a tough ask. There is more mileage in attacking the changed timetable of the deficit-reduction strategy but even there, the Tories can easily counter that (1) it was necessary to act strongly at the time so as to give a clear indication of intent to those lending, and (2) the revisions are in response to events and that you can criticise that the government should have cut less, or that it has missed its targets, but not both.
Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.' Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort. Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
Yep. You fight the next election on Cameron's honesty. I'm sure the public will understand. It's not dissimilar to a twitter correspondent who believed that the best counter to the Tories bringing up Corbyn's support of the IRA and Hamas was to counter with UK arms sales to Saudi, as if national security was the ground Labour should be fighting on.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
All good points, although I think the time where Eastern Europe kowtowed to Germany have been and gone.
Germany is still massively influential, obviously, but the emergence of new sub-blocs has made once-quiescent countries much bolder. Exacerbated by Merkel's immigration faux pas, I think, given the countries which the refugees transited are the same ones which export their labour over here!
If they don't then the Northern bloc might be minded to let the loss of the £11bn annual contribution from the UK fall entirely on a cut in grants on development aid. Remember, the EU budget negotiations will be driven by creditor nations trying to ensure they don't have to make up an £11bn annual gap in the finances, possibly up to £13bn given spending growth and changes in rebate rules
Also remember that Merkel might not be there, you are right that she is toxic with Eastern Europe, but I think she'll stand down after a bruising loss in September which will see AfD become the largest non-government party in Germany.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
The FPD would get the first call, assuming they make the 5% barrier, which they would were the election today.
Would they say yes though? They got Lib Dem'd last time they went into a coalition with Mrs Merkel. They may choose another cycle of rebuilding before heading back into government. The numbers are also less likely to work with the FDP than the greens as well, especially if the grand coalition scores less than 50% overall and barely makes the majority.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
They are only affected if sales substantially decline. Very few businesses will relocate in whole or in part to the UK from the rEU post-Brexit. The reverse scenario is a lot more possible. Tariffs and increased red tape will not create more jobs or increase investment over here, but they may well do in the EU.
It isn't about a relocation of business but instead a reduction of volume. Tariffs will reduce the volume if trade between the UK and EU.
Yep - and a lot of UK based businesses that do most of their work in the single market will avoid tariffs by relocating in part or in whole to the single market. Very few businesses will come the other way.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
*snipped for length*
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
All good points, although I think the time where Eastern Europe kowtowed to Germany have been and gone.
Germany is still massively influential, obviously, but the emergence of new sub-blocs has made once-quiescent countries much bolder. Exacerbated by Merkel's immigration faux pas, I think, given the countries which the refugees transited are the same ones which export their labour over here!
If they don't then the Northern bloc might be minded to let the loss of the £11bn annual contribution from the UK fall entirely on a cut in grants on development aid. Remember, the EU budget negotiations will be driven by creditor nations trying to ensure they don't have to make up an £11bn annual gap in the finances, possibly up to £13bn given spending growth and changes in rebate rules
Also remember that Merkel might not be there, you are right that she is toxic with Eastern Europe, but I think she'll stand down after a bruising loss in September which will see AfD become the largest non-government party in Germany.
Hmm. Interesting. The stick Germany has to beat them with seems studded with nails.
Just need to bring France and (maybe) Spain into line
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
They are only affected if sales substantially decline. Very few businesses will relocate in whole or in part to the UK from the rEU post-Brexit. The reverse scenario is a lot more possible. Tariffs and increased red tape will not create more jobs or increase investment over here, but they may well do in the EU.
It isn't about a relocation of business but instead a reduction of volume. Tariffs will reduce the volume if trade between the UK and EU.
Yep - and a lot of UK based businesses that do most of their work in the single market will avoid tariffs by relocating in part or in whole to the single market. Very few businesses will come the other way.
Or, as the LSE pointed out today, it just won't get done.
... Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
I hate to break this to you, Justin, but in 2020, the extent of voters' interest in the fact that someone who is no longer a party leader, or even an MP, changed his mind about his departure date fours years' previously will be a big, fat, round zero.
You also might like to reread your last sentence. It makes you sound barking mad.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.
Fighting but not both.
Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.' Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort. Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
Yep. You fight the next election on Cameron's honesty. I'm sure the public will understand. It's not dissimilar to a twitter correspondent who believed that the best counter to the Tories bringing up Corbyn's support of the IRA and Hamas was to counter with UK arms sales to Saudi, as if national security was the ground Labour should be fighting on.
If the next GE is fought in 2020, the consequences of Brexit will be front and centre. If things have gone badly, the Tories will get the blame and may well lose their overall majority. If they haven't, they will get a three figure majority.
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
....' etc.
Fighting the next election against a leader who left office four years earlier will be a tough ask. There is more mileage in attacking the changed timetable of the deficit-reduction strategy but even there, the Tories can easily counter that (1) it was necessary to act strongly at the time so as to give a clear indication of intent to those lending, and (2) the revisions are in response to events and that you can criticise that the government should have cut less, or that it has missed its targets, but not both.
Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
Labour can seek to highlight what they like. They will lose under Corbyn. The public has made up its mind.
I don't disagree with that - indeed I will not vote Labour myself if Corbyn is still leader.Some of the current polls are not that bad for Labour in the context of a honeymoon for a new PM and Labour's civil war. Opinium and YouGov have the Tories 7% and 9% ahead respectively. Those, however, are GB figures and somewhat distorted by a significant pro -Tory swing in Scotland since May 2015. When that effect is stripped out , the polls show little if any net swing in England & Wales. A few more months of a fading honeymoon might actually give us data implying a pro-Labour swing outside Scotland. Nick Palmer has also made the point that the pollsters may have overadjusted in response to their 2015 debacle - particularly if turnout levels among the young etc are now rising.The adjustments have added 2 or 3% to the Tory lead and needs to be borne in mind when making comparisons with the last Parliament.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
*snipped for length*
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
All good points, although I think the time where Eastern Europe kowtowed to Germany have been and gone.
Germany is still massively influential, obviously, but the emergence of new sub-blocs has made once-quiescent countries much bolder. Exacerbated by Merkel's immigration faux pas, I think, given the countries which the refugees transited are the same ones which export their labour over here!
If they don't then the Northern bloc might be minded to let the loss of the £11bn annual contribution from the UK fall entirely on a cut in grants on development aid. Remember, the EU budget negotiations will be driven by creditor nations trying to ensure they don't have to make up an £11bn annual gap in the finances, possibly up to £13bn given spending growth and changes in rebate rules
Also remember that Merkel might not be there, you are right that she is toxic with Eastern Europe, but I think she'll stand down after a bruising loss in September which will see AfD become the largest non-government party in Germany.
Hmm. Interesting. The stick Germany has to beat them with seems studded with nails.
Just need to bring France and (maybe) Spain into line
I think that's what HPC was about wrt to the French. If Rajoy manages to make it into government then he's a natural ally anyway. The thorniest point will be Gibraltar with them, but I think Gib will move into Schengen as a special arrangement much like Ireland are in the CTA.
Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.
I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
They are only affected if sales substantially decline. Very few businesses will relocate in whole or in part to the UK from the rEU post-Brexit. The reverse scenario is a lot more possible. Tariffs and increased red tape will not create more jobs or increase investment over here, but they may well do in the EU.
It isn't about a relocation of business but instead a reduction of volume. Tariffs will reduce the volume if trade between the UK and EU.
Yep - and a lot of UK based businesses that do most of their work in the single market will avoid tariffs by relocating in part or in whole to the single market. Very few businesses will come the other way.
Which British businesses will sign up and move accross the channel to enjoy France's employment laws ?
Also, note how much better off (in net income terms after housing costs) people born in the 1970s and 1980s are compared with those born earlier, at equivalent points in their lives.
... Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
I hate to break this to you, Justin, but in 2020, the extent of voters' interest in the fact that someone who is no longer a party leader, or even an MP, changed his mind about his departure date fours years' previously will be a big, fat, round zero.
You also might like to reread your last sentence. It makes you sound barking mad.
Not really - the point is very simple and obvious - ie nobody should have believed a word of what either said!
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
The FPD would get the first call, assuming they make the 5% barrier, which they would were the election today.
Would they say yes though? They got Lib Dem'd last time they went into a coalition with Mrs Merkel. They may choose another cycle of rebuilding before heading back into government. The numbers are also less likely to work with the FDP than the greens as well, especially if the grand coalition scores less than 50% overall and barely makes the majority.
They would certainly say yes. There is a long history of cooperation between the CDU/CSU and the FDP in Germany. They are natural coalition partners. Their low popularity in recent years has been of their own making rather than a consequence of being "Lib Dem'd".
Which British businesses will sign up and move accross the channel to enjoy France's employment laws ?
Lol.
It's about markets. If your market is Europe, which is almost synonymous with the EU, you are in the market you serve if you are based in the EU and not if you are based in the Brexited UK. If you don't need to be in the market to serve it, you can be anywhere - China, USA, Mexico. The UK loses out either way.
Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.' Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort. Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
Yep. You fight the next election on Cameron's honesty. I'm sure the public will understand. It's not dissimilar to a twitter correspondent who believed that the best counter to the Tories bringing up Corbyn's support of the IRA and Hamas was to counter with UK arms sales to Saudi, as if national security was the ground Labour should be fighting on.
If the next GE is fought in 2020, the consequences of Brexit will be front and centre. If things have gone badly, the Tories will get the blame and may well lose their overall majority. If they haven't, they will get a three figure majority.
That to an extent depends on Labour. if things go well post-Brexit then yes, it'll be a big Tory majority whatever Labour does. On the other hand, if they go badly, it's still a choice between Con and Lab and Corbyn is so hopelessly toxic that the Tories would still get back off the back of that fear, albeit with no public enthusiasm and the potential for a heavy defeat if Labour does then sort itself out. Of course, if Labour sorts itself out pre-2020 then a Labour win would be a genuine possibility but that's looking less and less likely.
One thing that will work to the Tories' advantage is that Brexit was explicitly mandated by the British public. There will no doubt be some scope for blame in terms of negotiating ability and policy but if it's not a success there's still the implicit get-out of 'we were doing what you told us to'. For the charge to stick, Labour would have to convince that they'd have done better.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
The FPD would get the first call, assuming they make the 5% barrier, which they would were the election today.
Would they say yes though? They got Lib Dem'd last time they went into a coalition with Mrs Merkel. They may choose another cycle of rebuilding before heading back into government. The numbers are also less likely to work with the FDP than the greens as well, especially if the grand coalition scores less than 50% overall and barely makes the majority.
They would certainly say yes. There is a long history of cooperation between the CDU/CSU and the FDP in Germany. They are natural coalition partners. Their low popularity in recent years has been of their own making rather than a consequence of being "Lib Dem'd".
But for many years they were also in coalition with Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt.
With the latest figures, it is clear that the disproportionate victimization of blacks has recently become sharply worse. It stands at its highest point for at least the last 20 years, having deteriorated dramatically over the last eight years. As the graphic above this editorial shows, the gap between black and white has been getting worse and worse ever since President Obama was sworn into office in 2009.
The budget of the EU, for anyone who wants to have a look. €11.5bn net contribution for the UK in 2015, this year will be higher still. The EU wants to keep the whole contribution and spread additional contributions among the 9 remaining creditor nations, the creditor nations want to reduce spending to make up the difference. Since the 9 nations pay the bills, what they say goes.
They would certainly say yes. There is a long history of cooperation between the CDU/CSU and the FDP in Germany. They are natural coalition partners. Their low popularity in recent years has been of their own making rather than a consequence of being "Lib Dem'd".
And the rise of AfD as the default choice of anti-EU feeling. They may go back but the numbers might not work, a score of 55% combined between the three parties is conceivable. I don't see how that coalition holds together.
Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.' Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort. Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. 8.
Yep. You fight the next election on Cameron's honesty. I'm sure the public will understand. It's not dissimilar to a twitter correspondent who believed that the best counter to the Tories bringing up Corbyn's support of the IRA and Hamas was to counter with UK arms sales to Saudi, as if national security was the ground Labour should be fighting on.
If the next GE is fought in 2020, the consequences of Brexit will be front and centre. If things have gone badly, the Tories will get the blame and may well lose their overall majority. If they haven't, they will get a three figure majority.
That to an extent depends on Labour. if things go well post-Brexit then yes, it'll be a big Tory majority whatever Labour does. On the other hand, if they go badly, it's still a choice between Con and Lab and Corbyn is so hopelessly toxic that the Tories would still get back off the back of that fear, albeit with no public enthusiasm and the potential for a heavy defeat if Labour does then sort itself out. Of course, if Labour sorts itself out pre-2020 then a Labour win would be a genuine possibility but that's looking less and less likely.
One thing that will work to the Tories' advantage is that Brexit was explicitly mandated by the British public. There will no doubt be some scope for blame in terms of negotiating ability and policy but if it's not a success there's still the implicit get-out of 'we were doing what you told us to'. For the charge to stick, Labour would have to convince that they'd have done better.
I agree with you on Labour, but very much doubt the public will blame themselves rather than the Tories for Brexit. Tories have been banging on for decades; the whole referendum thing was their doing, and the Tories are now associated with and tied to Brexit, whether (some of them) don't like it or not.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
The FPD would get the first call, assuming they make the 5% barrier, which they would were the election today.
Would they say yes though? They got Lib Dem'd last time they went into a coalition with Mrs Merkel. They may choose another cycle of rebuilding before heading back into government. The numbers are also less likely to work with the FDP than the greens as well, especially if the grand coalition scores less than 50% overall and barely makes the majority.
They would certainly say yes. There is a long history of cooperation between the CDU/CSU and the FDP in Germany. They are natural coalition partners. Their low popularity in recent years has been of their own making rather than a consequence of being "Lib Dem'd".
But for many years they were also in coalition with Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt.
True, but that's a while back now. Certainly since the 1980s they been seen as closer to the right than the left of the political spectrum in Germany. Socially liberal, yes, but also very business-friendly.
Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.' Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort. Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
Yep. You fight the next election on Cameron's honesty. I'm sure the public will understand. It's not dissimilar to a twitter correspondent who believed that the best counter to the Tories bringing up Corbyn's support of the IRA and Hamas was to counter with UK arms sales to Saudi, as if national security was the ground Labour should be fighting on.
If the next GE is fought in 2020, the consequences of Brexit will be front and centre. If things have gone badly, the Tories will get the blame and may well lose their overall majority. If they haven't, they will get a three figure majority.
That to an extent depends on Labour. if things go well post-Brexit then yes, it'll be a big Tory majority whatever Labour does. On the other hand, if they go badly, it's still a choice between Con and Lab and Corbyn is so hopelessly toxic that the Tories would still get back off the back of that fear, albeit with no public enthusiasm and the potential for a heavy defeat if Labour does then sort itself out. Of course, if Labour sorts itself out pre-2020 then a Labour win would be a genuine possibility but that's looking less and less likely.
One thing that will work to the Tories' advantage is that Brexit was explicitly mandated by the British public. There will no doubt be some scope for blame in terms of negotiating ability and policy but if it's not a success there's still the implicit get-out of 'we were doing what you told us to'. For the charge to stick, Labour would have to convince that they'd have done better.
Not sure it does work like that. There are plenty of prominent Brexiteers in the government who will can be blamed for fibbing if things do go wrong. Labour won't make many if any gains on the back of a bad Brexit if Corbyn is still in charge; but the LDs have a chance, I think, to make gains.
There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.
There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
The FPD would get the first call, assuming they make the 5% barrier, which they would were the election today.
Would they say yes though? They got Lib Dem'd last time they went into a coalition with Mrs Merkel. They may choose another cycle of rebuilding before heading back into government. The numbers are also less likely to work with the FDP than the greens as well, especially if the grand coalition scores less than 50% overall and barely makes the majority.
There's a fair bit in that but making a CSU/Green coalition work (plus the bits in between) will not be at all easy. The FDP would be an easier fit. That said, I take your point that they're not going to bring much to the table.
Would they prefer another cycle rebuilding? Particularly if they'd then be placed as the 'moderate' opposition party? Probably yes, they would. But beggars can't always be choosers and if CDU/CSU+SPD fall just short of 50% of the seats, I suspect that enough old hands would be happy enough to take their natural place. They ought to be able to drive a hard bargain in such circumstances on policy. After all, unlike the Lib Dems, who entered government for the first time post-WWII in 2010, the FDP have spent a large proportion of the last half-century in government.
Also, note how much better off (in net income terms after housing costs) people born in the 1970s and 1980s are compared with those born earlier, at equivalent points in their lives.
Interesting indeed.
Most likely explanation is it's a function of women entering the workforce in much larger numbers, earning higher (more equal) salaries.
The graph is showing household income - a real income comparison for working age males would be quite different, I suspect.
Comments
The existence of HPC is squeezing out private investment and raising the cost of power for consumers and businesses.
So why would we want the inflexibility of a decades long nuclear deal when we can get 15 year contracts (diminishing in price as more get taken on) or no contracts at all with gas?
trump does business with terrorists
Robert watching?? ;-)
Although nuclear plants, like all power stations, cannot operate with 100% uptime, their downtime for maintenance purposes can be (and is) planned to coincide with periods of lower demand, e.g. the summer. Power from wind turbines, on the other hand, is naturally intermittent, so your 66% (or whatever) is purely an average with no control over the timing of peaks and troughs (although it does tend to be windier in the winter, which helps).
While I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power in general or HPC in particular, I don't see how we can meet demands for a reliable electricity supply and low carbon emissions without a substantial nuclear contribution to the mix, at least in the short to medium term.
Court News
Defence: 'If I saw someone brandishing a hatchet, I'd be scared'
Pros: 'How long have you been counsel? You should be desensitised by now'
If the price is above $8, then there is a huge amount in the UK that can be extracted. We have massive gas resources - but it is simply not economic to drill it given current LNG contract rates.
I want to put the massive amount of natural gas discovered in context. 15 years ago, Cheniere Energy was building an LNG import terminal on the US Gulf coast because domestic production was dropping. Now, US is set to be the world's largest exporter of LNG inside the next five years.
Canada has made similar gas discoveries, it just doesn't have the LNG terminals to export it yet. Australia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Papua New Guinea: all of these have made discoveries of a scale that is almost incomprehensible. Australia has more LNG plants at FEED stage or under construction than the entire world LNG export capacity in 2010!
And don't forget, there is nothing unique about America's rocks. The technology that unlocked shale gas in the US will be as appropriate to use in Russia, Africa, Argentina and the like as it was in Texas and Louisiana.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/10/howard-flight-negotiating-a-brexit-passport-to-success-for-the-city-of-london.html
" If EU entities were required to establish subsidiaries in the UK, this would be extremely costly. There are over 70 EU banks in London under branch “passports” and thus not under Prudential Regulation Authority regulation. "
"Moodys have already argued that the City can cope reasonably without Single Market Passporting, rather using Equivalence Passporting. Where there are specific country requirements, which may limit the scope of Equivalence Passporting, the larger investment banks can surely use their subsidiary operations within the EU to book the business, with the work being done in London."
In a financial sense, I mean. Would it just be the frogs and Chinese paying our construction workers and that's it?
Clinton leads Trump 42-36 in the four-way race for the White House. Gary Johnson garnered 9 percent, Jill Stein got 2 percent and 10 percent remain undecided. It's a dramatic bump for Clinton: Trump led by one point before the debate, and in a POLITICO/Morning Consult survey conducted immediately after the debate, Clinton led by four points.
In a head-to-head race between Trump and Clinton, Clinton leads by seven points, 46 percent to 39 percent.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-poll-politico-morning-consult-229038#ixzz4M1FiXs00
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
2. Nuclear plants are designed to run at 95% uptime and actually achieve 80%. The gap is unscheduled downtime.
http://graphics.latimes.com/celebrity-presidential-endorsements/
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/10/02/30-times-classic_picx-funniest-twitter-account-whole-damn-world/
The problem is that the automotive supply chain is very cross border, so steel might go from a French plant to a UK subsystem supplier, back to a plant in Germany for making a gearbox, then to Nissan in Sunderland, before the final car goes to Swedish customer. If tariffs are imposed at every stage, it would crucify the UK car industry because - unlike our continental peers - we simply don't have enough of the supply chain in country.
2. We have multiple nuclear plants; they are not likely to all break down at the same time.
Top trolling of Corbyn by the Dept for Int Trade: is his jam up to the mark for export though? https://t.co/P5v20wzTfs
The timeframe for industrial level electrical storage is probably now shorter than the the timeframe for building Hinkley C. Of course, it might not be in which case we need a fall back position. I would suggest that we have two that do not rely on massive projects that are designed to produce dangerous elements that we have no plan to deal with. Gas is certain, proven technology and the second is reactors of the sort being developed by Moltex (smaller, quicker to build and will "use up" our existing stockpile of plutonium).
For HMG to have committed to HPC seems to me to be an act of great folly and, I think, the nuclear industry in its present state is doomed.
In fact, this is so backward an approach, I am not going to mock you and invite you to go full bore down this route. Use it as your only line of attack for the next three years.
Please.
Sinister Farce
Eoin wants to keep the current shadow cabinet with an 81 year old doing 3 jobs. https://t.co/fUuGwCHjLc
It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/23/jaw-dropping-fall-solar-prices-will-change-energy-markets/
The solar bids must also be causing some soul-searching at EdF. Its offer of $US25.33/MWh for the Abu Dhabi solar plant is just over one fifth of the price (£92.50, or $US120/MWh) it demanded for the new nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C in the UK…
Rule of thumb. Roughly half the value of an aircraft is its engines. Of the rest, roughly half the value is the wings.....
http://www.edmundconway.com/2013/01/what-britain-exports-the-ultimate-chart/
Will the £30 Bn being lent to EDF and the chinese (By RBS) count under "Financial exports"
Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.
Cameron to RIGHT of them,
Cameron to LEFT of them,
Cameron in front of them...
Forward, the Shite Brigade
Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort.
Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
Germany is still massively influential, obviously, but the emergence of new sub-blocs has made once-quiescent countries much bolder. Exacerbated by Merkel's immigration faux pas, I think, given the countries which the refugees transited are the same ones which export their labour over here!
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/nyt-didnt-pay-taxes-2014/2016/10/02/id/751276/
Also remember that Merkel might not be there, you are right that she is toxic with Eastern Europe, but I think she'll stand down after a bruising loss in September which will see AfD become the largest non-government party in Germany.
Just need to bring France and (maybe) Spain into line
You also might like to reread your last sentence. It makes you sound barking mad.
Lol.
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2016/10/3/this-is-the-real-cause-of-generational-wealth-inequality-in-the-uk
Not about housing, the author claims.
Also, note how much better off (in net income terms after housing costs) people born in the 1970s and 1980s are compared with those born earlier, at equivalent points in their lives.
One thing that will work to the Tories' advantage is that Brexit was explicitly mandated by the British public. There will no doubt be some scope for blame in terms of negotiating ability and policy but if it's not a success there's still the implicit get-out of 'we were doing what you told us to'. For the charge to stick, Labour would have to convince that they'd have done better.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/03/tory-chairmans-drive-nimo/
*More affectionately known as “that ol’ bastard.”
Washington Examiner
The murder rate for blacks has seen a dramatic increase under President Obama https://t.co/MuklbJVXFO https://t.co/IGo0DiB991
With the latest figures, it is clear that the disproportionate victimization of blacks has recently become sharply worse. It stands at its highest point for at least the last 20 years, having deteriorated dramatically over the last eight years. As the graphic above this editorial shows, the gap between black and white has been getting worse and worse ever since President Obama was sworn into office in 2009.
The budget of the EU, for anyone who wants to have a look. €11.5bn net contribution for the UK in 2015, this year will be higher still. The EU wants to keep the whole contribution and spread additional contributions among the 9 remaining creditor nations, the creditor nations want to reduce spending to make up the difference. Since the 9 nations pay the bills, what they say goes.
It was so dull to my ears that I turned Hammond off after 5 mins.
Would they prefer another cycle rebuilding? Particularly if they'd then be placed as the 'moderate' opposition party? Probably yes, they would. But beggars can't always be choosers and if CDU/CSU+SPD fall just short of 50% of the seats, I suspect that enough old hands would be happy enough to take their natural place. They ought to be able to drive a hard bargain in such circumstances on policy. After all, unlike the Lib Dems, who entered government for the first time post-WWII in 2010, the FDP have spent a large proportion of the last half-century in government.
I had to smile today when I read that Deutsche Bank plans 1,000 redundancies to help save it from crashing the eurozone banking system
If the workers' council agrees, of course. Agreement is compulsory.
I'm sure there will be plenty of US banks wanting to sign up for that.
2. It is an industry with a high multiplier effect
3. It is relatively highly paid jobs
PS For all that, I am not a fan of subsidizing it, however well disguised the subsidy is. BL should be remembered by anyone tempted to go that route.
Most likely explanation is it's a function of women entering the workforce in much larger numbers, earning higher (more equal) salaries.
The graph is showing household income - a real income comparison for working age males would be quite different, I suspect.