I hope you all had as much fun as Michael Gove had this weekend – politicalbetting.com

ydoethur said:

There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.

I wonder what image he would choose now...

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1432372587712090117

The polls never change.

isam said:

Sir Keir neck & neck with Boris on disapprovals

Keir Starmer Approval Rating (29 Aug):

Approve: 23% (–)
Disapprove: 40% (-1)
Net: -17% (+1)

Second lowest net approval rating for Starmer that we have recorded.

Changes +/- 23 Aug

Boris Johnson Approval Rating (29 Aug):

Approve: 38% (-1)
Disapprove: 40% (-5)
Net: -2% (+4)

Changes +/- 23 Aug

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.

Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.

Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:

* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT.
* Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis.
*Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail.
* An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon.
* Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt.
* Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing.
* The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT.
* Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt.
* An increase in IT to fund social care properly.

Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).

Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.

I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).

I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.

Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.

If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.

In absolute terms, not relative terms.
Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.

If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?

Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?

I mean, against what?

I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.

That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.

Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?

That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.

So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.

I wonder what image he would choose now...

I have this saved for future use.

Northern_Al said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.

I wonder what image he would choose now...

I have this saved for future use.

Is this a caption competition?

Yes Boris, I'm coming.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.

Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.

Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:

* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT.
* Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis.
*Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail.
* An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon.
* Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt.
* Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing.
* The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT.
* Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt.
* An increase in IT to fund social care properly.

Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).

Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.

I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).

I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.

Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.

If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.

Sure: but we were also growing faster than the EU before Brexit too. So we need to measure ourselves relative to that baseline, rather than to general EU growth.

Not necessarily. The EU is considerably behind us per capita so if they sort themselves out they should have room to 'catch up' with us and have faster growth than we can. Just because they've done badly in the past, is no guarantee they'll continue to do badly.

I expect you are right that we'll continue to grow faster than the EU, hence my bet earlier today with Gardenwalker on this subject, but either option is at least theoretically possible.

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.

Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.

Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:

* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT.
* Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis.
*Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail.
* An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon.
* Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt.
* Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing.
* The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT.
* Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt.
* An increase in IT to fund social care properly.

Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).

Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.

I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).

I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.

Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.

If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.

In absolute terms, not relative terms.
Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.

If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?

Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.

I wonder what image he would choose now...

I have this saved for future use.

Is this a caption competition?

Yes Boris, I'm coming.

We can make this a caption competition.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.

Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.

Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:

* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT.
* Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis.
*Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail.
* An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon.
* Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt.
* Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing.
* The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT.
* Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt.
* An increase in IT to fund social care properly.

Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).

Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.

I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).

I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.

Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.

If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.

Sure: but we were also growing faster than the EU before Brexit too. So we need to measure ourselves relative to that baseline, rather than to general EU growth.

Not necessarily. The EU is considerably behind us per capita so if they sort themselves out they should have room to 'catch up' with us and have faster growth than we can. Just because they've done badly in the past, is no guarantee they'll continue to do badly.

I expect you are right that we'll continue to grow faster than the EU, hence my bet earlier today with Gardenwalker on this subject, but either option is at least theoretically possible.

As @geoffw says - it's tricky. My gut is that we (and France FWIW) have relatively healthy demographics, and therefore should show reasonably good base levels of economic growth. By contrast Greece and Italy have terrible demographics, and Germany, Portugal and Spain aren't great either.

If you were to look at output per person of working age, there's actually been surprisingly little difference between the major economies worldwide in the last decade or two. Indeed, the best performing major country on "per person of working age" since 2000 is actually Japan - which goes to show how much demographics can really shaft you.

TimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.

Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.

Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:

* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT.
* Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis.
*Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail.
* An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon.
* Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt.
* Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing.
* The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT.
* Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt.
* An increase in IT to fund social care properly.

Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).

Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.

I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).

I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.

Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.

If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.

In absolute terms, not relative terms.
Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.

If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?

Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?

Regardless of how you cut it, Western European countries are already affluent. Why are we measuring success solely in terms of growth of that economic affluence instead of or in conjunction with some other parameters, such as happiness, sustainability, health, environmental quality etc...?

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.

Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.

Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:

* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT.
* Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis.
*Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail.
* An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon.
* Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt.
* Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing.
* The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT.
* Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt.
* An increase in IT to fund social care properly.

Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).

Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.

I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).

I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.

Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.

If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.

In absolute terms, not relative terms.
Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.

If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?

Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?

I mean, against what?

I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.

That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.

Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?

That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.

So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?

To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate.

We have placed frictions on our trading performance, and immigration both of which had real positive productivity and growth effects.

We are also already experiencing a big drop in FDI which also supported productivity growth and thereby, eventually, GDP growth.

That's what I thought you were saying, and what I'm trying to say is I don't see anything in the data to suggest that such a 0.5% was there to be lost in the first place.

To put it another way if the UK (or eg Italy instead of the UK) had not signed Maastricht and had Brexit in 1993 instead, are you suggesting that we'd have had 0.5% less annual growth, compounded, since 1993? Where would that put us now?

On your last paragraph, yes I am saying that.
Ceteris paribus, of course.

Same issue NZ would have had, were it not to have signed trade deals with China et al.

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.

Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.

Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:

* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT.
* Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis.
*Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail.
* An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon.
* Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt.
* Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing.
* The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT.
* Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt.
* An increase in IT to fund social care properly.

Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).

Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.

I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).

I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.

Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.

If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.

In absolute terms, not relative terms.
Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.

If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?

Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?

I mean, against what?

I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.

That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.

Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?

That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.

So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?

Gardenwalker said:

geoffw said:

@Gardenwalker "To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate."

Laughable.

Our long term growth rate is ~ 2% p.a..
So the single market was worth a quarter of our growth rate!

You haven't got a clue about growth. It is almost entirely accounted for by productivity change (i.e. technological change) and has hovered around 2% since WWII.

To take your argument to its absurd end, there is no point trading and productivity just “happens”.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1432372587712090117

The polls never change.

TimT said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

To me, this is consistent with my repeatedly stated view that the economic effects of Brexit one way or another are going to be lost in the noise. I was saying that long before Covid pumped up the volume (as Govey would no doubt say) to a deafening roar but it is even clearer now.

Whether the relatively trivial differences are on the upside or the down very much depends on whether the government of the day seizes the opportunities and takes all reasonable steps to mitigate the undoubted downsides. The jury is out on that, government competence is not a given, but those who claim that this was some sort of economic disaster surely have very little credibility left and even that will dissipate over the next few years.

Rather than arguing about a decision already taken it would be far more productive to focus on what steps we need to take as a nation to maximise our potential. I would like to see:

* super reliefs in corporation tax giving more than 100% relief to investments made in the next 5 years, arguably offset but an increase in the "normal" rate of CT.
* Super reliefs to companies who invest in approved training courses on the same basis.
*Movements away from the excessive taxation of bricks to give shops more of a chance with competing with online retail.
* An internet tax on goods and services provided through the internet to increase the contribution of the likes of Amazon.
* Serious steps to reduce or reverse the long term negative effects of student debt.
* Positive encouragement on our tertiary educational institutions to work with local employers ("local" being defined by the nature of the institution) to identify what skills and training they anticipate actually needing.
* The simplification and integration of our tax system by removing the financial incentives to adopt one business model over another and to incorporate NI into IT.
* Positive steps to encourage saving and reduce consumer debt.
* An increase in IT to fund social care properly.

Agree with all that, with possible exception of using income tax to fund social care (although yours might be most politically feasible solution).

Only bit I disagree with i main contention that Brexit - certainly this Brexit - is economically neutral.

I reckon it’s worth about 0.5% per annum in lost growth (which compounds to about 5% after a decade).

I know we have a bet already, but I simply think there's no potential chance that EU membership is worth 0.5% in "lost" growth per annum.

Put simply EU nations aren't (and haven't for a long time) growing in real terms substantially enough for there to be a 0.5% premium in the growth there to be lost in the first place.

If you look at growth in EU versus non-EU western developed nations since 1993, EU nations have actually gone backwards not forwards in growth. They've certainly not gone 0.5% better per annum compounded.

In absolute terms, not relative terms.
Though of course I contend there will be a relative difference between EU and U.K. growth paths.

If EU membership was worth 0.5% better annual compound growth in absolute terms then shouldn't we also see that in EU versus non-EU relative growth figures from 1993 onwards already?

Western EU growth figures have been so awful since 1993, that are you seriously suggesting that without the EU they would have been in absolute terms even worse by 0.5% per annum? Or is there something unique about Brexit Britain to have that impact?

I mean, against what?

I am suggesting that Britain’s growth trajectory, ceteris paribas, is now 0.5% worse.

That the EU is slower growing than East Asia or the USA is not especially relevant to that.

Are you saying the rest of the EU would also be 0.5% worse per annum compounded were they to exit too? Or just Britain?

That the EU is slower growing is relevant, because for them (or us) to "lose" 0.5% per annum by leaving the EU, surely you'd need to have an 'extra' 0.5% in the first place in order to lose it? You can't generally lose that which you never had to lose.

So if it wasn't for the 0.5% you seem to credit to EU membership then just how badly would Europe be doing relative to America, SE Asia and Oceania? And why?

To make clear: single market membership was worth roughly 0.5% per annum to U.K. growth rate.

We have placed frictions on our trading performance, and immigration both of which had real positive productivity and growth effects.

We are also already experiencing a big drop in FDI which also supported productivity growth and thereby, eventually, GDP growth.

That's what I thought you were saying, and what I'm trying to say is I don't see anything in the data to suggest that such a 0.5% was there to be lost in the first place.

To put it another way if the UK (or eg Italy instead of the UK) had not signed Maastricht and had Brexit in 1993 instead, are you suggesting that we'd have had 0.5% less annual growth, compounded, since 1993? Where would that put us now?

On your last paragraph, yes I am saying that.
Ceteris paribus, of course.

Same issue NZ would have had, were it not to have signed trade deals with China et al.

But it never is ceteris paribus, is it? A change to a part changes the whole.

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.

I wonder what image he would choose now...

I have this saved for future use.

isam said:

Sir Keir neck & neck with Boris on disapprovals

Keir Starmer Approval Rating (29 Aug):

Approve: 23% (–)
Disapprove: 40% (-1)
Net: -17% (+1)

Second lowest net approval rating for Starmer that we have recorded.

Changes +/- 23 Aug

Boris Johnson Approval Rating (29 Aug):

Approve: 38% (-1)
Disapprove: 40% (-5)
Net: -2% (+4)

Changes +/- 23 Aug

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.

bigjohnowls said:

SKS Ratings worse by another 6.5% in a month.

Keir Starmer (Lab)
Positive: 25.8% (-1.2)
Negative: 44.4% (+5.3)

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

There was a time when people talked of Gove as a future leader. I wrote a thread header on how rubbish he was and @TSE published it with a photo of him dressed as a farmer.

I wonder what image he would choose now...

I have this saved for future use.

Michael Gove finds out too late that a member of the NEU has put glue on his chair.

The re-enactment of Edward II's death scene gets just a little too real.....

another_richard said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

another_richard said:

bigjohnowls said:

SKS Ratings worse by another 6.5% in a month.

Keir Starmer (Lab)
Positive: 25.8% (-1.2)
Negative: 44.4% (+5.3)

Its not been a good month for the government either.

Normally the ratings for the LotO would fall when the government were doing well.

If they're falling when the government is struggling ...

I really do believe the public do not think labour could do any better

Not just that.

The public don't have a clue as to what Labour would even try to do.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Labour marooned ?

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1432372587712090117?s=19

rcs1000 said:

On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.

It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

another_richard said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

another_richard said:

bigjohnowls said:

SKS Ratings worse by another 6.5% in a month.

Keir Starmer (Lab)
Positive: 25.8% (-1.2)
Negative: 44.4% (+5.3)

Its not been a good month for the government either.

Normally the ratings for the LotO would fall when the government were doing well.

If they're falling when the government is struggling ...

I really do believe the public do not think labour could do any better

Not just that.

The public don't have a clue as to what Labour would even try to do.

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

How low can the CDU/CSU go?

Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?

Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Labour marooned ?

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1432372587712090117?s=19

I told you that Afghanistan wouldn't damage the Conservatives in the short term.

Johnson sensibly kept his head down, and the BBC narrative has been one of mission accomplished, so despite what ex military are saying no harm done.

Gardenwalker said:

geoffw said:

 

rcs1000 said:

On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.

It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

There have been literally hundreds of such studies. Per capita economic growth (the relevant measure for welfare) is not explained by either of the factors you mention.

Presumably a very elderly population is going to have a lower GDP per capita than one with a larger percentage of working age people.

Indeed this may explain the slowdown in Western economies since the 90s (from the post war boom).

rcs1000 said:

On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.

It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.

I don't exactly disagree with this but my Remain vote was based on a different (and very strong) feeling; that in order to meet the big challenges - (i) sustainable green growth (ii) equitable wealth distribution (iii) the emancipation of women (iv) racial equality - the direction of travel in the world has to be countries co-operating not competing, more internationalism less nationalism, open not closed borders; and that Brexit was the opposite of this and might presage a weakening of the EU, possibly even its collapse one day; this unique and innovative project over and failed, the continent reverting by a century to a rag bag collection of 'proud' nation states, each with their own little trade-impeding currencies, clashing foreign policies and agendas, tempted by race to the bottom economics, all generally trying to 'win' and 'beat' rather than 'improve' and 'develop', prone to aggression and bellicosity, a playground for cheap populist politicians to romp around in, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.

Are you saying in point (iii) that, in the U.K. / developed economies, emancipation of women is a great challenge? Rather strange comment.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

How low can the CDU/CSU go?

Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?

Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.

SPD and Green are on 41.65% combined, still well short of a majority.

They would still need the Union or FDP or Linke too, probably one of the former 2 as Scholz is on the right of the SPD.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Labour marooned ?

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1432372587712090117?s=19

I told you that Afghanistan wouldn't damage the Conservatives in the short term.

Johnson sensibly kept his head down, and the BBC narrative has been one of mission accomplished, so despite what ex military are saying no harm done.

Interestingly though neither Labour nor the LDs nor the Greens are up on that poll but Reform UK are, which would suggest that any Tory votes lost have gone to Reform UK over immigration (Leavers being least likely to want to welcome Afghan refugees here)

geoffw said:

 

rcs1000 said:

On the subject of economic growth, I suspect that if you did a linear regression, then demographics and natural resource endowment would explain 90% of economic performance of developed economies in the last twenty years.

It may be different in the next twenty, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

There have been literally hundreds of such studies. Per capita economic growth (the relevant measure for welfare) is not explained by either of the factors you mention.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kjh said:

geoffw said:

I've often been on planes where the passengers clapped on landing. It just reflects their age and nationality. Italians are most likely to applaud in my experience.

I would be reluctant to get on a plane if I knew the passengers thought it necessary to clap s successful landing.

My wife and I have flown extensively world wide over the last 20 years and clapping on landing is remarkably common in our experience

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Re Brexit and economic growth.

We don't know. Just as figures a year ago were completely skewed by the pandemic, so are the current ones as we bounce back. We also have to remember the UK was hit harder in terms of initial impact that the continent, because we had a much greater service component to our economy.

We will only really be able to get a handle on what the economic consequences are two or three years after Coronavirus has disappeared, and maybe not even then. Because the reality is that over short periods of time (one to five years), the economic cycle is going to be a much bigger driver of year-to-year performance than the impact (positive or negative) of Brexit.

It is also important to remember that - largely because of demographics - the UK should be inherently higher growth than the EU and the Eurozone. We don't have nearly as bad a dependency ratio as the Eurozone in general, and Italy or Greece in particular. This helped us grow faster than them before Brexit, and it should boost us on the far side.

To me the question of change in economic growth is: will the increase in flexibility that the UK government gets be greater than the added frictional costs of transacting with our neighbour? We do not know the answer now, and it might take decades before we're truly able to divine the answer.

I'm personally somewhat doubtful that Brexit will lead to structurally higher wages: ultimately, (a) we're all going to get paid relative to our global productivity in the long run, and (b) Britain's wage share as a percent of GDP is in line with most other G7 countries (and EU countries tend to score higher here than the US, Japan or Singapore anyway). Where I do think there will be a benefit for most lower income Brits is that it will cause less of a crush for scarce resources like housing, and that should feed through into lower rents and house prices.

To me, Brexit was a political choice not an economic one. I think government is best, when the people doing the governing are near to (and answerable to) the people. I think it leads to better, quicker decisions.

Sums up my feelings. I see greater agility as an economic upside in a rapidly changing world, but whether that upside is greater than the downside of greater transactional costs with the EU, I don't know. I believe in the longer term it will be if, but only if, Britain is governed well. And that is not a given. But I, for one, prefer that we have that option to find out.

I don't exactly disagree with this but my Remain vote was based on a different (and very strong) feeling; that in order to meet the big challenges - (i) sustainable green growth (ii) equitable wealth distribution (iii) the emancipation of women (iv) racial equality - the direction of travel in the world has to be countries co-operating not competing, more internationalism less nationalism, open not closed borders; and that Brexit was the opposite of this and might presage a weakening of the EU, possibly even its collapse one day; this unique and innovative project over and failed, the continent reverting by a century to a rag bag collection of 'proud' nation states, each with their own little trade-impeding currencies, clashing foreign policies and agendas, tempted by race to the bottom economics, all generally trying to 'win' and 'beat' rather than 'improve' and 'develop', prone to aggression and bellicosity, a playground for cheap populist politicians to romp around in, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Ah well. Just hope that proves a bit overwrought and wrong. It was certainly overwrought and long.

I started out in favour of L'Acte Unique, believing along the ground that you outline, that a greater whole would be better placed to address those issues, such as immigration and refugees and environmental issues, that are best addressed a the international or regional level, while the principle of subsidiarity would preserve the link to local politics.

Alas, subsidiarity was completely shat on. And the EU has not covered itself in glory on the big issues.

another_richard said:

I can confirm there are no shortages of stuff in Lidl.

As usual rammed full of rubbish short on quality and high on price.

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

How low can the CDU/CSU go?

Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?

Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.

This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.

Except the Tories actually picked their most electable leader in Boris as he proved in 2019.

The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet

All just your opinion.

Johnson won in 2019; that doesn't prove he was the Tories most electable leader. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, we'll never know. Hunt could have won a 150 seat majority. Who knows?

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

How low can the CDU/CSU go?

Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?

Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.

This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.

Except the Tories actually picked their most electable leader in Boris as he proved in 2019.

The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet

All just your opinion.

Johnson won in 2019; that doesn't prove he was the Tories most electable leader. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, we'll never know. Hunt could have won a 150 seat majority. Who knows?

rottenborough said:

Williamson's march to the exit doors continues...



Shaun Lintern
@ShaunLintern
Government says parents responsible for preventing new Covid wave when schools reopen

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

How low can the CDU/CSU go?

Who's dropping faster Trudeau's Liberals or Laschet's CDU?

Once you eliminate Other, you only need about 45-6% to get to half the seats in the Bundestag. That makes SPD + Green surprisingly close to a workable two party coalition.

This surely is the GE issue for Johnson's Tories... they may be ahead at the start of the next election but anything can happen during a campaign - and it often does.

Except the Tories actually picked their most electable leader in Boris as he proved in 2019.

The Union however rejected their most electable leadership candidate in Soder to replace Merkel in favour of the hapless Laschet

All just your opinion.

Johnson won in 2019; that doesn't prove he was the Tories most electable leader. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, we'll never know. Hunt could have won a 150 seat majority. Who knows?

The BXP would still have stood candidates in Tory seats against Hunt, Hunt would also not have made the gains in the Redwall Boris did although he might have held a few Remain seats like Putney and St Albans.

Overall though Hunt would not have won the majority Boris did and may not even have won a majority at all, ideologically Hunt was little different from Theresa May