politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Splendid self-isolation. The lack of realism infecting British
Comments
-
We covered this story. Filing a patent is not the same thing as getting one:CarlottaVance said:
Institute of Virology in Wuhan, the epicentre of the global coronavirus outbreak, filed a patent for Gilead’s remdesivir antiviral drug on January 21Charles said:
Do you believe that China has been as open and constructive as it should have been in this crisis?IanB2 said:I can see the massive container ships piled high with cheap Chinese crap passing by my window. I doubt they’ll stop coming, whatever the latest obsession of the Tory lunatic fringe.
https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3049227/who-owns-magic-cure-chinas-move-patent-gileads-experimental-drug-could
https://www.iam-media.com/coronavirus/wuhan-lab-says-it-will-seek-patent-protection-of-gilead-antiviral
But in filing a patent, you are telling the world what you claim to have invented. That is pretty open, isn’t it?
0 -
All countries will learn lessons, and have made mistakes, but the blame game gets nowhere fast. Only the real tin foil hatters think this a deliberate act.Charles said:
Do you believe that China has been as open and constructive as it should have been in this crisis?IanB2 said:I can see the massive container ships piled high with cheap Chinese crap passing by my window. I doubt they’ll stop coming, whatever the latest obsession of the Tory lunatic fringe.
@IanB2 makes the reasonable point, that while our citizens are unhappy with some aspects of globalisation, in the end there is a vast market for cheap Chinese goods, from pulse oximeters to smartphones, that cannot be supplied domestically.
I make the parallel of China and Amazon.com: Both are aggressive monopolistic suppliers, with dubious social and employment practices, and freeloading off more civic minded businesses. Both though are a good consumer experience in the main, and for many items effectively the only supplier. I cannot see a reason for either to change such a successful formula.
0 -
This is very cheeky - G&B Beauty products registered www.cobraprotect.com in early March - big ad for sanitising hand gels plastered over some newspaper websites.0
-
Many realists like myself backed Leave.FF43 said:No-one who thinks realism is important supported Leave. But yes, you win at the globalisation game by taking part. Unfortunately those like me that think globalisation is the path to prosperity didn't make the case for it nor support those that didn't share that prosperity.
We need to start doing that now.
Those who view Remain as some fantasist nirvana and those who view Leave as some fantasist Meeks style isolationist backwater won't be backing it. But that's not realist.1 -
You have to admit if they had a Eurovision popularity contest England would fare exactly as they do in the singing version , bottom of the pile.Casino_Royale said:"It’s not that others despise Britain. If they gave it any thought they probably would."
Just because you hate your own country doesn't mean everyone else does.
Disgusting.
PS: Always amazing that Britain does not equal England when the brickbats are incoming.0 -
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.0 -
Love the Casablanca references. One of my favourite films.
Anyway, on topic, I would sup with China with a very long spoon indeed (to my mind @AlistairM underestimates the malign effect of China’s political and social system on the world now, let alone if it becomes the global superpower), maintain very close trading links with the EU and wait and see whether the US re-elects Trump. But as no-one listens to me, that is by the by.
Perhaps Lisa Nandy could come up with some fresh thinking on the Labour side on foreign policy. She has the brains to do it, it would help distinguish the Starmer era from the adolescent hate-the-West-protest-group foreign policy which Corbyn introduced and it might sharpen up or provide some intelligent opposition to what the government is trying to do. There is certainly a need for it.3 -
Interesting piece with a few different themes. That the UK/US trade deal would run into problems was both predictable and widely predicted.
I disagree with AM in that he considers the UK very selective about trading partners.
To me it seems we have a confused and uncoordinated system, which leads to situations like the govt selling arms to the Saudis to target civilians, and then belatedly being told this is against the law. But he's right that in legal terms we care, in a way that some other countries don't.
AM says there is anti-corporate animus (and perhaps there is in some places), but in terms of facts on the ground corporations in the West seem more powerful than ever. In the UK, I see a country turning a blind eye to all kinds of tax havens within its jurisdiction.
The EU is the only organization looking to act - but they are still too weak and divided to do much. Too many countries like Malta, Ireland, Luxembourg need their sweetheart deals. ).1 -
" As a No10 adviser said: 'You can see lockdown is starting to sag at the edges a little. Imagine if that had happened two weeks ago just as we were approaching the peak. Imagine the lives that would have been lost.' "
(https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8257469/DAN-HODGES-inconvenient-truth-Boriss-critics-did-follow-science.html)
Exactly as a few of us on here said at the time when the media and the Left were screaming to be locked down asap.6 -
Its taught the British Govt to be more self sufficient even if its more expensive... a good thing imho.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.0 -
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.0 -
Singapore still struggling:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/coronavirus-931-new-cases-in-singapore-of-whom-15-are-singaporeans-and-prs
And they're taking no prisoners among foreigners who flout the rules (just deporting and barring them):
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/briton-deported-and-barred-from-re-entering-singapore-after-making-false0 -
Will he be able to top "shoplifting and pub fights down" Tory successes.OldKingCole said:Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Can understand Mr M being somewhat negative. Can't see much to be positive about, apart from the weather, at the moment, although Boris is said to be 'raring to go' on Monday. Might at least have a Press Conference where the speeches are less 'Newspeak" driven.
0 -
Best we can expect is that we will buy our cheap tat from some other similar very cheap manufacturing country.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.0 -
It does make you wonder what their priorities were in January.SouthamObserver said:
We covered this story. Filing a patent is not the same thing as getting one:CarlottaVance said:
Institute of Virology in Wuhan, the epicentre of the global coronavirus outbreak, filed a patent for Gilead’s remdesivir antiviral drug on January 21Charles said:
Do you believe that China has been as open and constructive as it should have been in this crisis?IanB2 said:I can see the massive container ships piled high with cheap Chinese crap passing by my window. I doubt they’ll stop coming, whatever the latest obsession of the Tory lunatic fringe.
https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3049227/who-owns-magic-cure-chinas-move-patent-gileads-experimental-drug-could
https://www.iam-media.com/coronavirus/wuhan-lab-says-it-will-seek-patent-protection-of-gilead-antiviral
But in filing a patent, you are telling the world what you claim to have invented. That is pretty open, isn’t it?0 -
-
MarqueeMark said:
I suspect that there will be a great deal of noise, as we have already seen with Trump in the US. Indeed, the UK government resisting very strong US pressure not to sign the Huawei deal, indicates that we are laggards in this movement, not the leaders. I expect a deterioration or perhaps even collapse of the WTO and increasing tariffs. China will be on the receiving end of a lot of this. None of this will help a world economy trying to recover from the current calamity of course but some rebalancing, particularly of UK trade, is required.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.0 -
Not due to work that is for sure , a couple of crap speeches does not cut it.Philip_Thompson said:Raab looks like he's aged since this outbreak broke.
0 -
who caresCarlottaVance said:0 -
You caught me - I only read the last sentence initially - skipped as soon as I saw the word Brexit!AlastairMeeks said:
I’m shocked - shocked - that echoes of Casablanca are being found in this piece.felix said:
The last line of the headers was reminiscent of Bogart and Raines in Casablancarcs1000 said:Alistair, this is all a bit "end is nigh". (And I speak as someone who warned of much of this before the vote.)
While deals with the EU, the US and China all require painful compromises (and therefore will probably not happen for some time), there are plenty of places that are not as overbearing as those three.
We would expect to see, therefore, deals with Canada, with New Zealand, with Australia, and with South Korea. Now, are these massive? No, because those countries simply aren't that big.
This does probably mean the UK's terms of trade will worsen somewhat. But that's not the end of the world. It will require some painful adjustments. And yes, some businesses will probably end up closing.
But in the long run, the wealth of the United Kingdom and its citizens will not be determined by the trade deals agreed in the coming decade, but in public policy choices, particularly around education and the tax and benefits system.
If we continue to discourage work through an ill sort out set of incentives. And if we choose to produce millions of young people without employable skills, then we'll be stuffed. But at least we won't be able to hide those faults through immigration from the EU.
Politicians, I grant you, have hardly covered themselves in glory so far. But at least they will be responsible. Thar can be no bad thing.
EDIT: Oops - just read the comments - not as original an insight as I thought!
Life is too short......0 -
Given the examples of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, are we also underestimating the fragility of the CCP regime?Cyclefree said:I would sup with China with a very long spoon indeed (to my mind @AlistairM underestimates the malign effect of China’s political and social system on the world now, let alone if it becomes the global superpower)
It is easy to ignore the lack of freedoms while everyone is getting richer. If growth slows or stops, perhaps some internal tensions will come to the surface.
2 -
The start of a beautiful friendship .....AlastairMeeks said:
I’m shocked - shocked - that echoes of Casablanca are being found in this piece.felix said:
The last line of the headers was reminiscent of Bogart and Raines in Casablancarcs1000 said:Alistair, this is all a bit "end is nigh". (And I speak as someone who warned of much of this before the vote.)
While deals with the EU, the US and China all require painful compromises (and therefore will probably not happen for some time), there are plenty of places that are not as overbearing as those three.
We would expect to see, therefore, deals with Canada, with New Zealand, with Australia, and with South Korea. Now, are these massive? No, because those countries simply aren't that big.
This does probably mean the UK's terms of trade will worsen somewhat. But that's not the end of the world. It will require some painful adjustments. And yes, some businesses will probably end up closing.
But in the long run, the wealth of the United Kingdom and its citizens will not be determined by the trade deals agreed in the coming decade, but in public policy choices, particularly around education and the tax and benefits system.
If we continue to discourage work through an ill sort out set of incentives. And if we choose to produce millions of young people without employable skills, then we'll be stuffed. But at least we won't be able to hide those faults through immigration from the EU.
Politicians, I grant you, have hardly covered themselves in glory so far. But at least they will be responsible. Thar can be no bad thing.
EDIT: Oops - just read the comments - not as original an insight as I thought!0 -
Generalising there I think?SouthamObserver said:Casino_Royale said:
It's very interesting how wealthy and well-off most hardcore Remainers are.Foxy said:
No, I am not bothered by Hard as Nails Brexit. I have arranged my affairs to minimise my exposure to it personally. My job and pension are safe, and I shall be rich enough to retire abroad with relative ease, should I choose.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Dr. Foxy, whilst there's merit in what you say, it also misses the point.
You refer to the 'vacuity of Brexitism', but the decision to leave was not based on endorsing a specific path forward, but on whether to remain in the EU or leave. Your attack (which, as I said, has merit) on how things might turn out is in no way a defence of, let alone promotion of, the EU. It's a bit like the strategic mistake the Remain campaign made, failing to defend the thing the vote was actually about and instead attacking what might happen as an alternative.
We can choose the way forward (and may choose wisely or poorly). But the referendum was about who decides (amongst other things).
If I were a resident of Remainia, as you put it, I'd be looking at trying to get the closest credible deal with the EU to make a return easier (this looks unlikely now, given the pro-EU Parliament repeatedly rejected everything May tried).
In time, I expect Britons will realise the self destructiveness of Autarky Brexit, but they need to get a strong sulphurous whiff of Hell before they repent.
How about Johnson?, Farage?, Dyson?, Witherspoons Idiot?, Oakeshott's bit of squeeze?, I could go on...by I won't, I'm just about managing on a pension.
0 -
Generalising there I think?SouthamObserver said:Casino_Royale said:
It's very interesting how wealthy and well-off most hardcore Remainers are.Foxy said:
No, I am not bothered by Hard as Nails Brexit. I have arranged my affairs to minimise my exposure to it personally. My job and pension are safe, and I shall be rich enough to retire abroad with relative ease, should I choose.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Dr. Foxy, whilst there's merit in what you say, it also misses the point.
You refer to the 'vacuity of Brexitism', but the decision to leave was not based on endorsing a specific path forward, but on whether to remain in the EU or leave. Your attack (which, as I said, has merit) on how things might turn out is in no way a defence of, let alone promotion of, the EU. It's a bit like the strategic mistake the Remain campaign made, failing to defend the thing the vote was actually about and instead attacking what might happen as an alternative.
We can choose the way forward (and may choose wisely or poorly). But the referendum was about who decides (amongst other things).
If I were a resident of Remainia, as you put it, I'd be looking at trying to get the closest credible deal with the EU to make a return easier (this looks unlikely now, given the pro-EU Parliament repeatedly rejected everything May tried).
In time, I expect Britons will realise the self destructiveness of Autarky Brexit, but they need to get a strong sulphurous whiff of Hell before they repent.
How about Johnson?, Farage?, Dyson?, Witherspoons Idiot?, Oakeshott's bit of squeeze?, I could go on...by I won't, I'm just about managing on a pension.
0 -
Who is the “their”? Many institutions around the world have patenting policies which state you should seek protection for your claimed inventions. Those doing the filing would have beenmpatent professionals, not doctors or researchers.CarlottaVance said:
It does make you wonder what their priorities were in January.SouthamObserver said:
We covered this story. Filing a patent is not the same thing as getting one:CarlottaVance said:
Institute of Virology in Wuhan, the epicentre of the global coronavirus outbreak, filed a patent for Gilead’s remdesivir antiviral drug on January 21Charles said:
Do you believe that China has been as open and constructive as it should have been in this crisis?IanB2 said:I can see the massive container ships piled high with cheap Chinese crap passing by my window. I doubt they’ll stop coming, whatever the latest obsession of the Tory lunatic fringe.
https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3049227/who-owns-magic-cure-chinas-move-patent-gileads-experimental-drug-could
https://www.iam-media.com/coronavirus/wuhan-lab-says-it-will-seek-patent-protection-of-gilead-antiviral
But in filing a patent, you are telling the world what you claim to have invented. That is pretty open, isn’t it?
0 -
Nice to see this header getting the respect and attention it deserves....1
-
Hard-core Brexiteers too.Casino_Royale said:
It's very interesting how wealthy and well-off most hardcore Remainers are.Foxy said:
No, I am not bothered by Hard as Nails Brexit. I have arranged my affairs to minimise my exposure to it personally. My job and pension are safe, and I shall be rich enough to retire abroad with relative ease, should I choose.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Dr. Foxy, whilst there's merit in what you say, it also misses the point.
You refer to the 'vacuity of Brexitism', but the decision to leave was not based on endorsing a specific path forward, but on whether to remain in the EU or leave. Your attack (which, as I said, has merit) on how things might turn out is in no way a defence of, let alone promotion of, the EU. It's a bit like the strategic mistake the Remain campaign made, failing to defend the thing the vote was actually about and instead attacking what might happen as an alternative.
We can choose the way forward (and may choose wisely or poorly). But the referendum was about who decides (amongst other things).
If I were a resident of Remainia, as you put it, I'd be looking at trying to get the closest credible deal with the EU to make a return easier (this looks unlikely now, given the pro-EU Parliament repeatedly rejected everything May tried).
In time, I expect Britons will realise the self destructiveness of Autarky Brexit, but they need to get a strong sulphurous whiff of Hell before they repent.
Fairly obviously, a lockdown that started earlier would finish earlier. Indeed very likely such an early lockdown would have been of shorter duration.rottenborough said:" As a No10 adviser said: 'You can see lockdown is starting to sag at the edges a little. Imagine if that had happened two weeks ago just as we were approaching the peak. Imagine the lives that would have been lost.' "
(https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8257469/DAN-HODGES-inconvenient-truth-Boriss-critics-did-follow-science.html)
Exactly as a few of us on here said at the time when the media and the Left were screaming to be locked down asap.
I think that we are now seeing a difference between places that took action early, and those too late. The Lockdown in Lombardy seems too late, while elsewhere in Italy effective. The same goes for France, with Paris and Eastern Departments in trouble, while a large number of Departments in South and West are virtually untouched. Much the same in England too.1 -
Sounds like Trump has finally realised that his two hour "performances" at the WH each evening on live TV are hurting his polling.0
-
An interesting question. An important one. I don’t know the answer.Socky said:
Given the examples of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, are we underestimating the fragility of the CCP regime?Cyclefree said:I would sup with China with a very long spoon indeed (to my mind @AlistairM underestimates the malign effect of China’s political and social system on the world now, let alone if it becomes the global superpower)
It is easy to ignore the lack of freedoms while everyone is getting richer. If growth slows or stops, perhaps some internal tensions will come to the surface.
But I did write this in my December header on China and the Uighur Muslims - “ Still, one lesson to be learnt from the disappearance of Soviet Russia and its satellites 3 decades ago, is that apparently permanent and impregnable and strong polities are not necessarily as permanent and impregnable and strong as everyone had supposed.” (See here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/09/lets-talk-about-islamophobia/).
1 -
Actually its the tendency of the insurance industry these days to write cars off as unrepairable, as its far cheaper for them to do so than repair in the vast majority of cases.Socky said:
I recently saw a lorry transporting what I assumed were second hand cars on the way to a dealer. One of the cars on board was a good condition BMW. I was just thinking; that's nice, I wonder how much it is. Then I noticed this wasn't a proper car transporter, and there was another car sitting on the roof of the BMW. Presumably the whole load was on the way to the crusher.Foxy said:Indeed it is impressive how few rusty cars we see nowadays.
The mechanics and electrics fail on modern cars way before the bodywork.0 -
Any halfwit who thought England would get a trade deal with USA in the mid term never mind quickly was obviously an absolute numpty with a plank for a brain.rkrkrk said:Interesting piece with a few different themes. That the UK/US trade deal would run into problems was both predictable and widely predicted.
I disagree with AM in that he considers the UK very selective about trading partners.
To me it seems we have a confused and uncoordinated system, which leads to situations like the govt selling arms to the Saudis to target civilians, and then belatedly being told this is against the law. But he's right that in legal terms we care, in a way that some other countries don't.
AM says there is anti-corporate animus (and perhaps there is in some places), but in terms of facts on the ground corporations in the West seem more powerful than ever. In the UK, I see a country turning a blind eye to all kinds of tax havens within its jurisdiction.
The EU is the only organization looking to act - but they are still too weak and divided to do much. Too many countries like Malta, Ireland, Luxembourg need their sweetheart deals. ).2 -
I agree. For some reason my comment making that point was not published. I was also going to say that I believe Dr Fox is a comprehensive boy who through hard work and talent has become a well-paid hospital consultant. That is something to celebrate.Daveyboy1961 said:
Generalising there I think?SouthamObserver said:Casino_Royale said:
It's very interesting how wealthy and well-off most hardcore Remainers are.Foxy said:
No, I am not bothered by Hard as Nails Brexit. I have arranged my affairs to minimise my exposure to it personally. My job and pension are safe, and I shall be rich enough to retire abroad with relative ease, should I choose.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Dr. Foxy, whilst there's merit in what you say, it also misses the point.
You refer to the 'vacuity of Brexitism', but the decision to leave was not based on endorsing a specific path forward, but on whether to remain in the EU or leave. Your attack (which, as I said, has merit) on how things might turn out is in no way a defence of, let alone promotion of, the EU. It's a bit like the strategic mistake the Remain campaign made, failing to defend the thing the vote was actually about and instead attacking what might happen as an alternative.
We can choose the way forward (and may choose wisely or poorly). But the referendum was about who decides (amongst other things).
If I were a resident of Remainia, as you put it, I'd be looking at trying to get the closest credible deal with the EU to make a return easier (this looks unlikely now, given the pro-EU Parliament repeatedly rejected everything May tried).
In time, I expect Britons will realise the self destructiveness of Autarky Brexit, but they need to get a strong sulphurous whiff of Hell before they repent.
How about Johnson?, Farage?, Dyson?, Witherspoons Idiot?, Oakeshott's bit of squeeze?, I could go on...by I won't, I'm just about managing on a pension.
0 -
Describes the UK perfectly , cheapskates who will ignore anything as long as it costs peanuts whilst whining about human rights etc etcPhilip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.0 -
Regarding China I've scratched my hear on this for a while. A couple of Christmases ago I had a look at the stuff we had bought for the childs, and almost all of it was made in China. The Chromebook I am typing this on was Made in China - the shortage of electronics as people switched to WFH was a big spike in demand just as inbound supply from China slowed down.
How do we boycott China as some suggest without rolling the technology clock back 20 years? I suspect most could live without the mindless plastic tat which comes from China, but unless we are going to gear up the 2020 version of Timex to produce UK electronics to go into the 2020 version of a Sinclair Spectrum them we will struggle.
And its not just China. Last night's weekly leftie quiz hit controversy when a question was asked about Amazon where you lost points if you had bought stuff from these "scroungers". A lot of complaints on the Zoom screen. Such an approach is absurd in the modern world. I not only buy from Amazon I like Amazon. Same with Wetherspoons. Sanctimonious boycotts - whether against Amazon from the left or against China from the right - need to be ignored.2 -
Human nature, Malc. Human nature.malcolmg said:
Describes the UK perfectly , cheapskates who will ignore anything as long as it costs peanuts whilst whining about human rights etc etcPhilip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.0 -
Which won't be China going forward as for things that require human labour, India, Africa and Bangladesh will be cheaper.Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
0 -
You mean the Austin Allegro designed by the non-nationalised conglomerate of British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd?Socky said:"You must remember this did not work particularly well in Britain when it was tried in the 1960s and 1970s. This leads inexorably to the Austin Allegro. "
That just proves Socialism doesn't work.0 -
Possibly, but anecdotally any major failure on a car more than a few years old will cost more than the car is worth.megalomaniacs4u said:Actually its the tendency of the insurance industry these days to write cars off as unrepairable, as its far cheaper for them to do so than repair in the vast majority of cases.
Parts are expensive, labour is expensive, and modern cars are complicated and difficult to repair.
Device repairability is one area the enviro-mentalists could usefully apply some pressure, but don't.0 -
It's ratber astonishing that some people seem unable to understand the concept that an earlier, tighter lockdown would also have been very likely to be a shorter lockdown. I've no idea who this Dan Hodges is, but he seems a complete idiot.Foxy said:
Hard-core Brexiteers too.Casino_Royale said:
It's very interesting how wealthy and well-off most hardcore Remainers are.Foxy said:
No, I am not bothered by Hard as Nails Brexit. I have arranged my affairs to minimise my exposure to it personally. My job and pension are safe, and I shall be rich enough to retire abroad with relative ease, should I choose.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Dr. Foxy, whilst there's merit in what you say, it also misses the point.
You refer to the 'vacuity of Brexitism', but the decision to leave was not based on endorsing a specific path forward, but on whether to remain in the EU or leave. Your attack (which, as I said, has merit) on how things might turn out is in no way a defence of, let alone promotion of, the EU. It's a bit like the strategic mistake the Remain campaign made, failing to defend the thing the vote was actually about and instead attacking what might happen as an alternative.
We can choose the way forward (and may choose wisely or poorly). But the referendum was about who decides (amongst other things).
If I were a resident of Remainia, as you put it, I'd be looking at trying to get the closest credible deal with the EU to make a return easier (this looks unlikely now, given the pro-EU Parliament repeatedly rejected everything May tried).
In time, I expect Britons will realise the self destructiveness of Autarky Brexit, but they need to get a strong sulphurous whiff of Hell before they repent.
Fairly obviously, a lockdown that started earlier would finish earlier. Indeed very likely such an early lockdown would have been of shorter duration.rottenborough said:" As a No10 adviser said: 'You can see lockdown is starting to sag at the edges a little. Imagine if that had happened two weeks ago just as we were approaching the peak. Imagine the lives that would have been lost.' "
(https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8257469/DAN-HODGES-inconvenient-truth-Boriss-critics-did-follow-science.html)
Exactly as a few of us on here said at the time when the media and the Left were screaming to be locked down asap.
I think that we are now seeing a difference between places that took action early, and those too late. The Lockdown in Lombardy seems too late, while elsewhere in Italy effective. The same goes for France, with Paris and Eastern Departments in trouble, while a large number of Departments in South and West are virtually untouched. Much the same in England too.0 -
Wiki: BLMC was created on 17 January 1968 by the merger of British Motor Holdings and Leyland Motor Corporation encouraged by Tony Benn as chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation Committee created by the first Wilson Government.Theuniondivvie said:You mean the Austin Allegro designed by the non-nationalised conglomerate of British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd?
0 -
OKC, Unfortunately true but you would hope enough had brain power to realise that buying everything cheap from abroad ends up with them not having decent jobs. You get what we have now , a layer of highly paid jobs and the rest on minimum wage / zero hour contracts. They are stupid as well.OldKingCole said:
Human nature, Malc. Human nature.malcolmg said:
Describes the UK perfectly , cheapskates who will ignore anything as long as it costs peanuts whilst whining about human rights etc etcPhilip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.0 -
I do think you are wrong on this. It tis difficult to get any sort of accurate picture under lockdown, I admit. But in those conversations I have had, there does seem to be a mood abroad that China should suffer for lying about the extent of the Covid-19 epidemic they were suffering, closing down their own medical staff from raising the alarm - and thereby not instilling in the outside world the much earlier level of action this virus required.Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
I suspect that will be much more strongly felt in the US. I could see "Buy Chinese last" becoming an overt movement over there.0 -
There are the big 3 trading units in the world
i) Ex NAFTA, dominated by the USA - this is the one that orbits the USA - Canada, Mexico, Caribbean islands all are intertwined to this.
ii) East Asia, dominated by China - raw materials supplied by Australia, reach into Africa.
iii) EU+ incl Norway etc, the far extended Germany-France settlement of WWII.
As well as smaller ones, South America (Dominated by Brazil, South Asia (India).
You can be a semi detached member of any of them - New Zealand to the east Asia orbit for instance or Norway to the EU; but you need to work closely with one of them. And that for us is the EU. I don't think it matters so much if we're a member now, that process is painful for joining and leaving but it shares closer values, is closer geographically and is probably our best bet to trade with of the big blocks.6 -
Or possibly multiple shorter lockdowns within the long wait for a vaccine.FeersumEnjineeya said:It's rather astonishing that some people seem unable to understand the concept that an earlier, tighter lockdown would also have been very likely to be a shorter lockdown.
The choices made might yet turn out to be the wrong ones, but that is not clear as of now.
0 -
Wee Scotlandermalcolmg said:
who caresCarlottaVance said:0 -
Also Wiki: It was partly nationalised in 1975, when the UK government created a holding company called British Leyland, later BL, in 1978.Socky said:
Wiki: BLMC was created on 17 January 1968 by the merger of British Motor Holdings and Leyland Motor Corporation encouraged by Tony Benn as chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation Committee created by the first Wilson Government.Theuniondivvie said:You mean the Austin Allegro designed by the non-nationalised conglomerate of British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd?
Best waiting till there are actually reds under the bed before piddling in your PJs.0 -
The questions then are:Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
1. By how much the China Research Group will have to convince HMG to increase tariffs on China by so that Chinese goods are no longer the cheapest?
2. How much trade we will lose due to retaliatory tariffs from China?
3. In aggregate how much will that cost?
4. Are the benefits of shifting trade away from China, and hopefully towards democracies such as India, as well as domestically, worth the costs?
My instinctive thoughts are that I wish the CRG more success than I ever wished the ERG.0 -
Morning all
An interesting thread from Antifrank as always for which many thanks.
While the notion of globalisation has its proponents and its merits the problem is it illustrates the exploitative nature of capitalism. If it costs me 10p to make a widget and another country can do it for 1p and even with transport the net cost is 5p I know what I would be tempted to do.
From coal to pineapples, the economic history of the last three centuries is replete with countries who started off being the top dog for that product and then found themselves undercut by a cheaper rival elsewhere. As transport costs fell that advantage became more stark.
First it was China then it will be south Asia and eventually it will be Africa whose resources are being exploited now and whose people will be exploited later.
Yet we now see the cultural issues with globalisation finally coming in from the fringes - "money talks, men walk" as someone once said and whether it's from the fields or across continents people will always leave poverty for imagined prosperity - wouldn't you?
For rich and poor it's a huge challenge and add into it the current atmosphere of fear and overlay that with the spectre of the impacts of climate change and it becomes a global as much as a regional challenge.
I've always stated leaving the EU gives us the chance to re-imagine the nation state for the 21st Century and beyond and part of that is around working with other nations. "Global Britain" isn't just about trade or economics but about our place in the world - the question that has bedevilled our politics since 1945.
Having that debate about what kind of Britain we want is worthwhile - embracing what is best about us doesn't make us insular. We can be both what we are and what we can bring to the world and take from the world.0 -
Tom Tugendhat, that avid Brexiteer that voted for Remain. Some people just won't let go will they.CarlottaVance said:Worth reading what Tom Tugendhat actually wrote about China:
The challenge is unlike any before. We cannot isolate ourselves from China. We need to engage not just to contain this deadly virus but to work together on the challenges we all face. automation, climate change, demographics and much more will have a dramatic impact on China as well as everywhere else, and we need to find ways to work together. But cooperation can only come from understanding.
https://www.cityam.com/we-must-understand-china-to-manage-the-threat-of-this-rising-superpower/
No mentions of "Singapore on Thames" or "punishment" or "John Bull".
Meanwhile it's seeing China for the last two decades as a mere "trading partner" while they've treated the West as an adversary in a Cold War that's landed us where we are. Condoleeza Rice recently apologised to a conference hall full of Asian business leaders for letting China into the WTO, calling it the greatest mistake of her political career. She is right.
If you've spent time with any remotely senior CPC members and understood their motivations and priorities you will agree. The Chinese Communist Party has been waging an economic, trading, diplomatic and technological war for decades now but most Western politicians have been too glib and naive to realise. Even as Xi Jinping made the policy overt, with speeches and policy papers practically declaring such.
Well done TT for putting your head up on this when no-one else wanted to listed.2 -
Sure. That from memory is pretty much how the Swiss system works, and I never heard any complaints about it. As I say, I don't claim that the NHS is the only model that works, only that the US model has a gaping hole which becomes horrible at times of mass unemployment - ironically especially when this is caused by health issues, since if you don't have insurance you will be inhibited from getting your health checked, just at a time when the public interest makes it important.felix said:<
It would be ok if those unemployed were all given similar cover by the state while they were not working for whatever reason.1 -
If the rest of the world could exert pressure on China that would be great. But it requires things that arent going to happen, close co-ordination between many countries with the US accepting both the responsibility of the lead role, but also simultaneously accepting it doesnt have a unilateral say in the response to China. We are miles away from that. The next decade will be isolationalist and nationalistic. We need to prepare for that and understand the limits of our influence, not waste our influence where there is no hope of success.Cyclefree said:Love the Casablanca references. One of my favourite films.
Anyway, on topic, I would sup with China with a very long spoon indeed (to my mind @AlistairM underestimates the malign effect of China’s political and social system on the world now, let alone if it becomes the global superpower), maintain very close trading links with the EU and wait and see whether the US re-elects Trump. But as no-one listens to me, that is by the by.
Perhaps Lisa Nandy could come up with some fresh thinking on the Labour side on foreign policy. She has the brains to do it, it would help distinguish the Starmer era from the adolescent hate-the-West-protest-group foreign policy which Corbyn introduced and it might sharpen up or provide some intelligent opposition to what the government is trying to do. There is certainly a need for it.
In that world, the UK saying we dont want to trade with China is like a semi famous author saying they wont deal with Amazon. The impact is negligible to the bigger player and the response is fine come back when you realise you are better off getting involved.0 -
Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all0 -
Now that Brexit is done Tugendhat might lead the tories one day. One day sooner than we realise.moonshine said:
Tom Tugendhat, that avid Brexiteer that voted for Remain. Some people just won't let go will they.CarlottaVance said:Worth reading what Tom Tugendhat actually wrote about China:
The challenge is unlike any before. We cannot isolate ourselves from China. We need to engage not just to contain this deadly virus but to work together on the challenges we all face. automation, climate change, demographics and much more will have a dramatic impact on China as well as everywhere else, and we need to find ways to work together. But cooperation can only come from understanding.
https://www.cityam.com/we-must-understand-china-to-manage-the-threat-of-this-rising-superpower/
No mentions of "Singapore on Thames" or "punishment" or "John Bull".
Meanwhile it's seeing China for the last two decades as a mere "trading partner" while they've treated the West as an adversary in a Cold War that's landed us where we are. Condoleeza Rice recently apologised to a conference hall full of Asian business leaders for letting China into the WTO, calling it the greatest mistake of her political career. She is right.
If you've spent time with any remotely senior CPC members and understood their motivations and priorities you will agree. The Chinese Communist Party has been waging an economic, trading, diplomatic and technological war for decades now but most Western politicians have been too glib and naive to realise. Even as Xi Jinping made the policy overt, with speeches and policy papers practically declaring such.
Well done TT for putting your head up on this when no-one else wanted to listed.2 -
It would not surprise me. This is very much this government's MO: float something in the press to test reaction while complaining that the press are insufficiently supplicant.contrarian said:
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.0 -
I think that seems pretty reasonable.Frank_Booth said:I respect Alastair's efforts to contribute articles on here but I don't think this is a good one. I fear he is stuck in a remainer vs leaver mindset that shapes everything else.
Nick Palmer mentioned the lack of strategic thinking which seems right. There was strategic thinking of sorts from Osborne but it was probably the wrong kind. Let's be as friendly as possible to get the economic benefits and then China is more likely to be influenced by us. He might as well have said 'stand shoulder to shoulder.'
I would have thought a sensible position would be - The rise of China is a reality, how might we gain some benefit from that whilst protecting ourselves from the threats it poses (in its current form of governance). Perhaps an opposition lead by a human rights barrister could think of something?0 -
What's your plan then? Buy gold and bury it in the garden?contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all0 -
Yes, I think cold hard self interest will override many of the loftier ambitions of responses to China.Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.1 -
Yes, I've never heard of any other government floating ideas in the press or complaining about the media.Dura_Ace said:
It would not surprise me. This is very much this government's MO: float something in the press to test reaction while complaining that the press are insufficiently supplicant.contrarian said:
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.1 -
Another point that they probably havent considered as it is more than one step ahead which is difficult for them.LostPassword said:
The questions then are:Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
1. By how much the China Research Group will have to convince HMG to increase tariffs on China by so that Chinese goods are no longer the cheapest?
2. How much trade we will lose due to retaliatory tariffs from China?
3. In aggregate how much will that cost?
4. Are the benefits of shifting trade away from China, and hopefully towards democracies such as India, as well as domestically, worth the costs?
My instinctive thoughts are that I wish the CRG more success than I ever wished the ERG.
If the EU know we are about to cut trade with China, and that internal US politics makes a UK-US trade deal impossible there, it massively strengthens their hand in UK-EU negotiations. Even if we refuse a deal now, sooner or later we will be forced back to the EU as it will be our only option left.0 -
Remain had its smaller share of ideologues. If we deduct Remainers who accept the result and the tiny number of Leavers who voted for a Global Britain and then changed their minds when confronted with the clear evidence that nativist Brexit was no such thing, we can calculate that realism is a minority interest in the UK right now. Very minority actually.Socky said:
I would argue that Europhilia was the triumph of idealism over realism.FF43 said:No-one who thinks realism is important supported Leave.
The actual EU always seems to fall short of the dream.0 -
Blood pressure meds and Covid - early results
Paper has been submitted for peer review but has not been reviewed yet. If you are taking these meds - keep taking them - if you're worried talk to your Dr before doing anything.
In our dataset, we found that people taking ACE inhibitors and ARBs were twice as likely to report having symptoms of COVID-19 than those who weren’t taking any blood pressure medications, while those taking other types of drug for blood pressure were actually half as likely to show any symptoms.
But - and it’s a big but - we didn’t see the same relationship when it came to people who had actually had a test for COVID-19. In this case, people taking blood pressure medications were just as likely to have a positive test results than those who weren’t.
This may be because there is relatively limited coronavirus testing in the UK, with tests mostly reserved for people who are directly and frequently exposed to the virus, such as healthcare workers, and seriously ill patients who have been hospitalised. So we can’t be sure what’s going on in the wider population for people who have less intense exposure or less serious disease.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/blood-pressure0 -
If you remember, in early February before all this started the possibility of Sajid Javid introducing a mansion tax was leaked to the press. It was claimed Johnson initially liked but then nixed the idea. If they wanted one then they aren't going to be shy about having one now.contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
What to do about It is the question though.0 -
That would be to make the mistake of assuming dispassionate rationality on our part, but so much of politics is governed by passion that a lengthy period of stubborn isolation on Britain's part, leavened by an optimistic view of what can be achieved by a re-engagement with the Commonwealth, would be a much more likely result of a hardball stance from the EU.noneoftheabove said:
Another point that they probably havent considered as it is more than one step ahead which is difficult for them.LostPassword said:
The questions then are:Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
1. By how much the China Research Group will have to convince HMG to increase tariffs on China by so that Chinese goods are no longer the cheapest?
2. How much trade we will lose due to retaliatory tariffs from China?
3. In aggregate how much will that cost?
4. Are the benefits of shifting trade away from China, and hopefully towards democracies such as India, as well as domestically, worth the costs?
My instinctive thoughts are that I wish the CRG more success than I ever wished the ERG.
If the EU know we are about to cut trade with China, and that internal US politics makes a UK-US trade deal impossible there, it massively strengthens their hand in UK-EU negotiations. Even if we refuse a deal now, sooner or later we will be forced back to the EU as it will be our only option left.0 -
Establishing property values might be a challenge for quite some time.IshmaelZ said:
If you remember, in early February before all this started the possibility of Sajid Javid introducing a mansion tax was leaked to the press. It was claimed Johnson initially liked but then nixed the idea. If they wanted one then they aren't going to be shy about having one now.contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
What to do about It is the question though.0 -
Meanwhile, in kinder and gentler news:
https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/12541606649496657940 -
-
Mark, perhaps among your rich Tory friends, unfortunately the great unwashed will through necessity or stupidity remain cheapskates.MarqueeMark said:
I do think you are wrong on this. It tis difficult to get any sort of accurate picture under lockdown, I admit. But in those conversations I have had, there does seem to be a mood abroad that China should suffer for lying about the extent of the Covid-19 epidemic they were suffering, closing down their own medical staff from raising the alarm - and thereby not instilling in the outside world the much earlier level of action this virus required.Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
I suspect that will be much more strongly felt in the US. I could see "Buy Chinese last" becoming an overt movement over there.0 -
One of the problems with boycotting China is that in many very important areas for the fourth industrial revolution and IoT - 5G, AI, blockchain - they have very strong, often world-leading technology. It will be very tough to work around that.0
-
It isn;t just a mansion tax that is being floated. Its a savings tax too. And so if you have money on deposit, the government will just take a percentage.IshmaelZ said:
If you remember, in early February before all this started the possibility of Sajid Javid introducing a mansion tax was leaked to the press. It was claimed Johnson initially liked but then nixed the idea. If they wanted one then they aren't going to be shy about having one now.contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
What to do about It is the question though.
Or stealing, as its otherwise known.
The governments policies have already turned Britain into a third world country. State Kleptocracy is just the next step.0 -
The Commonwealth are not going to doff their cap and accept being lorded over again by England, they will also tell them to GTF.LostPassword said:
That would be to make the mistake of assuming dispassionate rationality on our part, but so much of politics is governed by passion that a lengthy period of stubborn isolation on Britain's part, leavened by an optimistic view of what can be achieved by a re-engagement with the Commonwealth, would be a much more likely result of a hardball stance from the EU.noneoftheabove said:
Another point that they probably havent considered as it is more than one step ahead which is difficult for them.LostPassword said:
The questions then are:Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
1. By how much the China Research Group will have to convince HMG to increase tariffs on China by so that Chinese goods are no longer the cheapest?
2. How much trade we will lose due to retaliatory tariffs from China?
3. In aggregate how much will that cost?
4. Are the benefits of shifting trade away from China, and hopefully towards democracies such as India, as well as domestically, worth the costs?
My instinctive thoughts are that I wish the CRG more success than I ever wished the ERG.
If the EU know we are about to cut trade with China, and that internal US politics makes a UK-US trade deal impossible there, it massively strengthens their hand in UK-EU negotiations. Even if we refuse a deal now, sooner or later we will be forced back to the EU as it will be our only option left.0 -
And also they are too busy being lorded over by China....malcolmg said:
The Commonwealth are not going to doff their cap and accept being lorded over again by England, they will also tell them to GTF.LostPassword said:
That would be to make the mistake of assuming dispassionate rationality on our part, but so much of politics is governed by passion that a lengthy period of stubborn isolation on Britain's part, leavened by an optimistic view of what can be achieved by a re-engagement with the Commonwealth, would be a much more likely result of a hardball stance from the EU.noneoftheabove said:
Another point that they probably havent considered as it is more than one step ahead which is difficult for them.LostPassword said:
The questions then are:Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
1. By how much the China Research Group will have to convince HMG to increase tariffs on China by so that Chinese goods are no longer the cheapest?
2. How much trade we will lose due to retaliatory tariffs from China?
3. In aggregate how much will that cost?
4. Are the benefits of shifting trade away from China, and hopefully towards democracies such as India, as well as domestically, worth the costs?
My instinctive thoughts are that I wish the CRG more success than I ever wished the ERG.
If the EU know we are about to cut trade with China, and that internal US politics makes a UK-US trade deal impossible there, it massively strengthens their hand in UK-EU negotiations. Even if we refuse a deal now, sooner or later we will be forced back to the EU as it will be our only option left.0 -
Hard to do when so many people are living on savings already - and plenty more will be doing so once furlough ends. If people have no income, no way of getting a job and such assets as they have are confiscated, what are they supposed to live on?IshmaelZ said:
If you remember, in early February before all this started the possibility of Sajid Javid introducing a mansion tax was leaked to the press. It was claimed Johnson initially liked but then nixed the idea. If they wanted one then they aren't going to be shy about having one now.contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
What to do about It is the question though.0 -
Are you insane, what kind of gibberish is thatCarlottaVance said:
Wee Scotlandermalcolmg said:
who caresCarlottaVance said:0 -
Mr. Observer, aye, tech built on the back of widespread, blatant IP theft to which the world turned a blind eye. Which may not necessarily have been terribly clever.0
-
Unless there's sudden legislation to plaster Made in China in huge letters over everything, it won't be an issue. Folk need to take a walk through the Parkead Forge B&Ms if they think anyone gives a fcuk about where stuff's made.malcolmg said:
Mark, perhaps among your rich Tory friends, unfortunately the great unwashed will through necessity or stupidity remain cheapskates.MarqueeMark said:
I do think you are wrong on this. It tis difficult to get any sort of accurate picture under lockdown, I admit. But in those conversations I have had, there does seem to be a mood abroad that China should suffer for lying about the extent of the Covid-19 epidemic they were suffering, closing down their own medical staff from raising the alarm - and thereby not instilling in the outside world the much earlier level of action this virus required.Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
I suspect that will be much more strongly felt in the US. I could see "Buy Chinese last" becoming an overt movement over there.0 -
Indeed it is BUT.... its all.you hear about these days. If you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth ,even a tarnished one,you are damned ,irrespective of your capabilities.SouthamObserver said:
I agree. For some reason my comment making that point was not published. I was also going to say that I believe Dr Fox is a comprehensive boy who through hard work and talent has become a well-paid hospital consultant. That is something to celebrate.Daveyboy1961 said:
Generalising there I think?SouthamObserver said:Casino_Royale said:
It's very interesting how wealthy and well-off most hardcore Remainers are.Foxy said:
No, I am not bothered by Hard as Nails Brexit. I have arranged my affairs to minimise my exposure to it personally. My job and pension are safe, and I shall be rich enough to retire abroad with relative ease, should I choose.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Dr. Foxy, whilst there's merit in what you say, it also misses the point.
You refer to the 'vacuity of Brexitism', but the decision to leave was not based on endorsing a specific path forward, but on whether to remain in the EU or leave. Your attack (which, as I said, has merit) on how things might turn out is in no way a defence of, let alone promotion of, the EU. It's a bit like the strategic mistake the Remain campaign made, failing to defend the thing the vote was actually about and instead attacking what might happen as an alternative.
We can choose the way forward (and may choose wisely or poorly). But the referendum was about who decides (amongst other things).
If I were a resident of Remainia, as you put it, I'd be looking at trying to get the closest credible deal with the EU to make a return easier (this looks unlikely now, given the pro-EU Parliament repeatedly rejected everything May tried).
In time, I expect Britons will realise the self destructiveness of Autarky Brexit, but they need to get a strong sulphurous whiff of Hell before they repent.
How about Johnson?, Farage?, Dyson?, Witherspoons Idiot?, Oakeshott's bit of squeeze?, I could go on...by I won't, I'm just about managing on a pension.0 -
The value of a house won't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.AlastairMeeks said:
Establishing property values might be a challenge for quite some time.IshmaelZ said:
If you remember, in early February before all this started the possibility of Sajid Javid introducing a mansion tax was leaked to the press. It was claimed Johnson initially liked but then nixed the idea. If they wanted one then they aren't going to be shy about having one now.contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
What to do about It is the question though.1 -
I think bribed by are the words you're looking for.contrarian said:
And also they are too busy being lorded over by China....malcolmg said:
The Commonwealth are not going to doff their cap and accept being lorded over again by England, they will also tell them to GTF.LostPassword said:
That would be to make the mistake of assuming dispassionate rationality on our part, but so much of politics is governed by passion that a lengthy period of stubborn isolation on Britain's part, leavened by an optimistic view of what can be achieved by a re-engagement with the Commonwealth, would be a much more likely result of a hardball stance from the EU.noneoftheabove said:
Another point that they probably havent considered as it is more than one step ahead which is difficult for them.LostPassword said:
The questions then are:Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
1. By how much the China Research Group will have to convince HMG to increase tariffs on China by so that Chinese goods are no longer the cheapest?
2. How much trade we will lose due to retaliatory tariffs from China?
3. In aggregate how much will that cost?
4. Are the benefits of shifting trade away from China, and hopefully towards democracies such as India, as well as domestically, worth the costs?
My instinctive thoughts are that I wish the CRG more success than I ever wished the ERG.
If the EU know we are about to cut trade with China, and that internal US politics makes a UK-US trade deal impossible there, it massively strengthens their hand in UK-EU negotiations. Even if we refuse a deal now, sooner or later we will be forced back to the EU as it will be our only option left.0 -
On topic, the UK's best option now is to quietly but effectively repair relationships with the EU. The EU may be creaking but it is, as it was, the only game in town in Europe. If supply lines are going regional rather than global that means more EU, not less.
Closer relations with China was the only major potential win from Brexit. If that's now out the picture, we're left where we started: with the EU.0 -
A very good question. I have no idea what the answer is.Cyclefree said:
Hard to do when so many people are living on savings already - and plenty more will be doing so once furlough ends. If people have no income, no way of getting a job and such assets as they have are confiscated, what are they supposed to live on?IshmaelZ said:
If you remember, in early February before all this started the possibility of Sajid Javid introducing a mansion tax was leaked to the press. It was claimed Johnson initially liked but then nixed the idea. If they wanted one then they aren't going to be shy about having one now.contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
What to do about It is the question though.0 -
I agree that will be the first response and probably the EU would be expecting that. How long would/can stubborn isolation last? And how long do the EU expect it would last?LostPassword said:
That would be to make the mistake of assuming dispassionate rationality on our part, but so much of politics is governed by passion that a lengthy period of stubborn isolation on Britain's part, leavened by an optimistic view of what can be achieved by a re-engagement with the Commonwealth, would be a much more likely result of a hardball stance from the EU.noneoftheabove said:
Another point that they probably havent considered as it is more than one step ahead which is difficult for them.LostPassword said:
The questions then are:Philip_Thompson said:
No they won't. People will continue to buy whatever is cheapest.MarqueeMark said:
The world will quietly adopt, without any formal policy ever being announced, a buy China last approach.DavidL said:I do not think that there is any doubt that COvid-19 is going to result in a significant reduction in international trade and investment. Even the UK, which has determinedly remained open to the world when most have shut their doors, is likely to impose quarantine restrictions soon. This will make international travel, already heading to much greater costs due to low occupancy rates, prohibitively expensive.
I also do not doubt that there is considerable anger with China arising from both the source of the virus and the lies told about it. But Alastair is wrong to say that this is a UK thing, it is not. What we will see is a lot of foreign manufacturing moving out of China. Most of that will belong to the US, our investments are somewhat smaller. There will be a desire to have shorter lines of supply and import substitution is going to be important.
The idea that the UK will be in the vanguard of this is wrong but we will no doubt play our small part. To take the voices arguing for this as evidence of a uniquely Britannia approach is wrong, they are a part of a much broader conversation.
This will matter to China but probably not as much as we think it will. They have critical mass in their own economy and in their economic sphere of influence.
1. By how much the China Research Group will have to convince HMG to increase tariffs on China by so that Chinese goods are no longer the cheapest?
2. How much trade we will lose due to retaliatory tariffs from China?
3. In aggregate how much will that cost?
4. Are the benefits of shifting trade away from China, and hopefully towards democracies such as India, as well as domestically, worth the costs?
My instinctive thoughts are that I wish the CRG more success than I ever wished the ERG.
If the EU know we are about to cut trade with China, and that internal US politics makes a UK-US trade deal impossible there, it massively strengthens their hand in UK-EU negotiations. Even if we refuse a deal now, sooner or later we will be forced back to the EU as it will be our only option left.0 -
Soylent green ?IshmaelZ said:
A very good question. I have no idea what the answer is.Cyclefree said:
Hard to do when so many people are living on savings already - and plenty more will be doing so once furlough ends. If people have no income, no way of getting a job and such assets as they have are confiscated, what are they supposed to live on?IshmaelZ said:
If you remember, in early February before all this started the possibility of Sajid Javid introducing a mansion tax was leaked to the press. It was claimed Johnson initially liked but then nixed the idea. If they wanted one then they aren't going to be shy about having one now.contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
What to do about It is the question though.0 -
Covid is going to increase isolationism. It could be painted as a symptom of globalisation. Even foreign holidays may become rarities like they were pre 60s.0
-
Mr. 43, it's possible an economic argument will work now when it failed in abject fashion (due to being ludicrously overblown) in 2016, due to the impact of ye olde plague.
But ignoring the identity/governance aspect is deeply unwise if you want to bang the drum for the EU.
I doubt anybody was voting to leave, or very few, due to enthusiasm about China.0 -
One of the new trends in crypto is that of the stablecoin, a crypto whose value is pegged to a fiat currency (or other real world commodity) but with the greater fungibility and censorship resistance of crypto.LostPassword said:
What's your plan then? Buy gold and bury it in the garden?contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
It is quite easy these days to put your money out of reach of the state, and getting easier every day. That trend will accelerate greatly if the government decide to start giving everyone's savings a haircut.0 -
The only way I see the government funding this in a way remotely acceptable to the public is by printing money or expressly defaulting on debts. Printing money is probably more palatable.
Now might be a very good time to fix mortgage deals.1 -
I fixed for 5 years a few weeks back.AlastairMeeks said:The only way I see the government funding this in a way remotely acceptable to the public is by printing money or expressly defaulting on debts. Printing money is probably more palatable.
Now might be a very good time to fix mortgage deals.0 -
IP only exists once you create it. Very few companies used to file for patent protection in China, which meant Chinese companies were at perfect liberty to use the inventions. Likewise, the West could have chosen to prioritise investment in 5G infrastructure. It chose not to. None of that is China’s fault. Trade secret theft, counterfeiting and puracy are another matter, mind!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, aye, tech built on the back of widespread, blatant IP theft to which the world turned a blind eye. Which may not necessarily have been terribly clever.
1 -
In order to prevent this situation, the government would have had to live, for a while, with a high-ish level of daily deaths.IshmaelZ said:
A very good question. I have no idea what the answer is.Cyclefree said:
Hard to do when so many people are living on savings already - and plenty more will be doing so once furlough ends. If people have no income, no way of getting a job and such assets as they have are confiscated, what are they supposed to live on?IshmaelZ said:
If you remember, in early February before all this started the possibility of Sajid Javid introducing a mansion tax was leaked to the press. It was claimed Johnson initially liked but then nixed the idea. If they wanted one then they aren't going to be shy about having one now.contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
What to do about It is the question though.
They would have had to tough out some awful days and terrible headlines in order to protect the British economy.
They simply could not do this. The did not have courage to sacrifice some lives now to save the country from a penury that will be worse for many, many more lives. Policy is all about keeping Adam Boulton and Piers Morgan happy.
As such, a much worse fate awaits them
0 -
Yes, in general it's going to be another round of asset price inflation at the expense of holders of cash. I've taken this into account for my investments.AlastairMeeks said:The only way I see the government funding this in a way remotely acceptable to the public is by printing money or expressly defaulting on debts. Printing money is probably more palatable.
Now might be a very good time to fix mortgage deals.0 -
I said they don't think realism is important.i wouldn't necessarily go as far as say they were fantasists. In any case it's more than 52%. Remain had its share of ideologues too.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 43, I don't subscribe to your view that 52% of the country are fantasists.
But it's a lot easier to call the other side fantasists, Little Englanders, xenophobes, (or traitors...), than it is to actually consider what their concerns are and why they voted the way they did. But that does mean engaging with their opinions and treating them as valid, rather than ignorant fantastical nonsense to be derided.1 -
MAybe Covid-19 has caused those deaths in people who had not been tested.isam said:0 -
I hear the govt has real difficulty tracing it if you have onecoin. The problem is the owners cant find them either!kyf_100 said:
One of the new trends in crypto is that of the stablecoin, a crypto whose value is pegged to a fiat currency (or other real world commodity) but with the greater fungibility and censorship resistance of crypto.LostPassword said:
What's your plan then? Buy gold and bury it in the garden?contrarian said:Covid 19 may be dominating your thoughts, but mine are turning to assets that I have, property, shares, pension pot, bank deposits and so one tc.
Why? because a wealth tax may be coming. Its been floated in the Times and the Guardian in the past few days and these things are not coincidences.
The politicians are starting to look, horrified, at the numbers, and are realising they have completely bankrupted Britain for what will soon be seen as a highly questionable return.
What better way to make up for the worst policy decision in history than to steal the money from our core vote via state confiscation of assets? (as a 'one off, of course. Special situation doncha know)
You might think Johnson and co would be insane to do that. but then much the government has done in recent weeks has been completely insane.
It was Peter Hitchens who flagged this up originally and why would we believe him? well he's got so much else right about this worst of all debacles, after all
It is quite easy these days to put your money out of reach of the state, and getting easier every day. That trend will accelerate greatly if the government decide to start giving everyone's savings a haircut.0 -
If you have no.mortgage and banks are thieving from customers by offering 0.1% interest on your money,AlastairMeeks said:The only way I see the government funding this in a way remotely acceptable to the public is by printing money or expressly defaulting on debts. Printing money is probably more palatable.
Now might be a very good time to fix mortgage deals.
creating money is like to be very inflationary ... and you cannot afford to risk the stockmarket...someone like me is gonna get stuffed.... bigtime.0 -
Welcome to holding cash back in the 1970's or in any inflationary environment.squareroot2 said:
If you have no.mortgage and banks are thieving from customers by offering 0.1% interest on your money,AlastairMeeks said:The only way I see the government funding this in a way remotely acceptable to the public is by printing money or expressly defaulting on debts. Printing money is probably more palatable.
Now might be a very good time to fix mortgage deals.
creating money is like to be very inflationary ... and you cannot afford to risk the stockmarket...someone like me is gonna get stuffed.... bigtime.
If you don't want risk purchase Swiss Francs.0
