The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Because the studies are based on dodgy assumptions.
You and I made a £100 bet, years ago, where I said that a decade after post-Covid the UK would have outgrown the EU per capita. I'm currently winning that bet.
The idea we'd have outgrown them by an additional 9% on top is for the birds. We weren't pre-Brexit.
Wouldn’t it now require us to be the same size as Germany. Who really believes if we had stayed in the EU we would now have the same size economy as Germany?
Indeed.
That's the problem, they don't need to really believe it, just say its the case and because of Brexit and people will swallow any old shite, without doing a bullshit sniff test first.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Similar studies were written that immigration didn't suppress wages. The writers of them are starting with a conclusion they like and working backwards. The idea that the UK could have grown, on average, 0.8-1.0% per year faster than it has done since 2016 is fanciful. If the study had suggested 1-2% total and 0.1-0.3% per year it might have some credibility, 8% less isn't within the realm of possibility for an economy like the UK which has high debt and a decades long low productivity issue that predated Brexit.
I mean using the US as the major weighting just screams that the writers of this study haven't ever been to the UK, seen the effects of the welfare state and low risk, low investment culture we've had for the better part of 20 years.
Also, the US has had an extremely favourable run fuelled by public borrowing on the back of USD being the global reserve currency. That isn't something this country will ever been able to replicate, in or out of the EU the UK is always going to be at the mercy of bond markets which means the opportunity to just massively increase the deficit and pump the economy with fiscal stimulus is extremely limited.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Similar studies were written that immigration didn't suppress wages. The writers of them are starting with a conclusion they like and working backwards. The idea that the UK could have grown, on average, 0.8-1.0% per year faster than it has done since 2016 is fanciful. If the study had suggested 1-2% total and 0.1-0.3% per year it might have some credibility, 8% less isn't within the realm of possibility for an economy like the UK which has high debt and a decades long low productivity issue that predated Brexit.
I mean using the US as the major weighting just screams that the writers of this study haven't ever been to the UK, seen the effects of the welfare state and low risk, low investment culture we've had for the better part of 20 years.
Also, the US has had an extremely favourable run fuelled by public borrowing on the back of USD being the global reserve currency. That isn't something this country will ever been able to replicate, in or out of the EU the UK is always going to be at the mercy of bond markets which means the opportunity to just massively increase the deficit and pump the economy with fiscal stimulus is extremely limited.
Indeed.
If they wanted a realistic comparison then Germany and France would have been the major weightings.
But that wouldn't have given the desired headline.
Which is why all those who are celebrating Badenoch's slight improvement in the polls are going to be disappointed. The Tories own Brexit lock stock and barrel. For those few who still think it was a good idea Farage.is loitering in the wings.
When a party likely to be in government announces they will rejoin the EU then you can hope but it is not on the horizon for the foreseeable future
When a Party in government crashes the economy by doing something as destructive as causeing us to Brexit then it takes a long time-years- for the country to forgive and forget. Today as every time they have an Any Questions the guaranteed cheer comes whenever someone castigates Brexit. Wherever in the country it is held and whoever mentions it.. Today it was the turn of Daisy Cooper
The people voted to leave in a democratic referendum
I voted remain but certainly the UK is in a very different position today with pros and cons but rejoining the EU, much as you crave, is simply a pipe dream
And by the way how many people listen to any questions and even more so how many have a clue who Daisy Cooper is ?
Its not a pipe dream, its more a matter of when we Rejoin. Probably a decade away but will come around fast.
Brexit has been a manifest failure. It hasn't fixed any of our economic or political problems and is in large part responsible for our economic doldrums.
Far more than either Farage's youthful racism or his Putin links, it is his achillies heel. His signature policy is loathed by 2/3 of the population.
It’s utter derangement. Our original membership terms proved to be immensely punitive, and it is highly unlikely we would even join back on those terms. It would be a punishment beating. For what purpose? If you want free movement of people and to buy each others widgets friction free there are agreements that can be entered into to achieve that.
But membership? No. It’s done and dusted. We will not want to join on any terms that would be offered , or be welcome. We would be seen as a disruptive influence, as we were first time when we insisted we only wanted to buy and sell things to each other and kept on saying no.
Which is why all those who are celebrating Badenoch's slight improvement in the polls are going to be disappointed. The Tories own Brexit lock stock and barrel. For those few who still think it was a good idea Farage.is loitering in the wings.
When a party likely to be in government announces they will rejoin the EU then you can hope but it is not on the horizon for the foreseeable future
When a Party in government crashes the economy by doing something as destructive as causeing us to Brexit then it takes a long time-years- for the country to forgive and forget. Today as every time they have an Any Questions the guaranteed cheer comes whenever someone castigates Brexit. Wherever in the country it is held and whoever mentions it.. Today it was the turn of Daisy Cooper
The people voted to leave in a democratic referendum
I voted remain but certainly the UK is in a very different position today with pros and cons but rejoining the EU, much as you crave, is simply a pipe dream
And by the way how many people listen to any questions and even more so how many have a clue who Daisy Cooper is ?
Its not a pipe dream, its more a matter of when we Rejoin. Probably a decade away but will come around fast.
Brexit has been a manifest failure. It hasn't fixed any of our economic or political problems and is in large part responsible for our economic doldrums.
Far more than either Farage's youthful racism or his Putin links, it is his achillies heel. His signature policy is loathed by 2/3 of the population.
It’s utter derangement. Our original membership terms proved to be immensely punitive, and it is highly unlikely we would even join back on those terms. It would be a punishment beating. For what purpose? If you want free movement of people and to buy each others widgets friction free there are agreements that can be entered into to achieve that.
But membership? No. It’s done and dusted. We will not want to join on any terms that would be offered , or be welcome. We would be seen as a disruptive influence, as we were first time when we insisted we only wanted to buy and sell things to each other and kept on saying no.
This video of Corbyn being confronted at a Your Party meeting for not being anti Zionist enough is quite something, exasperated he says "I'm fed up with being painted into a corner of being seen as a pro Zionist" then says "what do you think I've been doing with my life?" only to be met with "it was under your leadership the IHRA definition of antisemitism was adopted, you condemn the resistance in Palestine, you haven't called for one unitary state..."
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Similar studies were written that immigration didn't suppress wages. The writers of them are starting with a conclusion they like and working backwards. The idea that the UK could have grown, on average, 0.8-1.0% per year faster than it has done since 2016 is fanciful. If the study had suggested 1-2% total and 0.1-0.3% per year it might have some credibility, 8% less isn't within the realm of possibility for an economy like the UK which has high debt and a decades long low productivity issue that predated Brexit.
I mean using the US as the major weighting just screams that the writers of this study haven't ever been to the UK, seen the effects of the welfare state and low risk, low investment culture we've had for the better part of 20 years.
Also, the US has had an extremely favourable run fuelled by public borrowing on the back of USD being the global reserve currency. That isn't something this country will ever been able to replicate, in or out of the EU the UK is always going to be at the mercy of bond markets which means the opportunity to just massively increase the deficit and pump the economy with fiscal stimulus is extremely limited.
Indeed.
If they wanted a realistic comparison then Germany and France would have been the major weightings.
But that wouldn't have given the desired headline.
France is probably the fairest comparison and overall growth is basically the same over the same period for France and the UK, though France has ever so slightly better per capita growth. Again, there may have been a somewhat limited negative effect on the economy from Brexit (though I maintain that the actual evidence is extremely limited in either direction), however the larger issues for this country are entirely domestic. Low skill, low grade immigration, surging housing costs, surging welfare costs, inflation out of control again out of step with the EU (again, nothing to do with Brexit just incompetence from the government), a completely idiotic planning system holding back investment in infrastructure and other large projects.
In or out of the EU these problems would basically all be the same.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Similar studies were written that immigration didn't suppress wages. The writers of them are starting with a conclusion they like and working backwards. The idea that the UK could have grown, on average, 0.8-1.0% per year faster than it has done since 2016 is fanciful. If the study had suggested 1-2% total and 0.1-0.3% per year it might have some credibility, 8% less isn't within the realm of possibility for an economy like the UK which has high debt and a decades long low productivity issue that predated Brexit.
I mean using the US as the major weighting just screams that the writers of this study haven't ever been to the UK, seen the effects of the welfare state and low risk, low investment culture we've had for the better part of 20 years.
Also, the US has had an extremely favourable run fuelled by public borrowing on the back of USD being the global reserve currency. That isn't something this country will ever been able to replicate, in or out of the EU the UK is always going to be at the mercy of bond markets which means the opportunity to just massively increase the deficit and pump the economy with fiscal stimulus is extremely limited.
The methodology of all of these studies has the flaw that it assumes an inflexion point, and if the data fail to show one, it gets explained away by creating an implausible counterfactual. Meanwhile the causes of the actual inflection point of 2008 remain poorly understood.
Which is why all those who are celebrating Badenoch's slight improvement in the polls are going to be disappointed. The Tories own Brexit lock stock and barrel. For those few who still think it was a good idea Farage.is loitering in the wings.
When a party likely to be in government announces they will rejoin the EU then you can hope but it is not on the horizon for the foreseeable future
When a Party in government crashes the economy by doing something as destructive as causeing us to Brexit then it takes a long time-years- for the country to forgive and forget. Today as every time they have an Any Questions the guaranteed cheer comes whenever someone castigates Brexit. Wherever in the country it is held and whoever mentions it.. Today it was the turn of Daisy Cooper
The people voted to leave in a democratic referendum
I voted remain but certainly the UK is in a very different position today with pros and cons but rejoining the EU, much as you crave, is simply a pipe dream
And by the way how many people listen to any questions and even more so how many have a clue who Daisy Cooper is ?
Its not a pipe dream, its more a matter of when we Rejoin. Probably a decade away but will come around fast.
Brexit has been a manifest failure. It hasn't fixed any of our economic or political problems and is in large part responsible for our economic doldrums.
Far more than either Farage's youthful racism or his Putin links, it is his achillies heel. His signature policy is loathed by 2/3 of the population.
It’s utter derangement. Our original membership terms proved to be immensely punitive, and it is highly unlikely we would even join back on those terms. It would be a punishment beating. For what purpose? If you want free movement of people and to buy each others widgets friction free there are agreements that can be entered into to achieve that.
But membership? No. It’s done and dusted. We will not want to join on any terms that would be offered , or be welcome. We would be seen as a disruptive influence, as we were first time when we insisted we only wanted to buy and sell things to each other and kept on saying no.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Studies based on a garbage in, garbage out, methodology of saying we assume the UK would have grown more were it not for Brexit and our study says that as a result.
The real world data does not match those studies. The UK has not been the laggard.
real world data says 'not for eu' stamped items in my cupboards has a cost we all pay
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Studies based on a garbage in, garbage out, methodology of saying we assume the UK would have grown more were it not for Brexit and our study says that as a result.
The real world data does not match those studies. The UK has not been the laggard.
real world data says 'not for eu' stamped items in my cupboards has a cost we all pay
What cost? Why do we pay it? How significant is that cost?
Actual data please. Because its not showing up in actual growth data, where we've outgrown Europe, not become the laggard.
The idea that ceteris paribus if we'd remained in the EU we'd miraculously now be bigger than Germany, because we didn't Brexit, is just total and utter bullshit.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Studies based on a garbage in, garbage out, methodology of saying we assume the UK would have grown more were it not for Brexit and our study says that as a result.
The real world data does not match those studies. The UK has not been the laggard.
real world data says 'not for eu' stamped items in my cupboards has a cost we all pay
What cost? Why do we pay it? How significant is that cost?
Actual data please. Because its not showing up in actual growth data, where we've outgrown Europe, not become the laggard.
The idea that ceteris paribus if we'd remained in the EU we'd miraculously now be bigger than Germany, because we didn't Brexit, is just total and utter bullshit.
Nah just take a moment think of all the opportunities we've lost because we've spent a decade trying to polish the brexit turd.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Studies based on a garbage in, garbage out, methodology of saying we assume the UK would have grown more were it not for Brexit and our study says that as a result.
The real world data does not match those studies. The UK has not been the laggard.
real world data says 'not for eu' stamped items in my cupboards has a cost we all pay
What cost? Why do we pay it? How significant is that cost?
Actual data please. Because its not showing up in actual growth data, where we've outgrown Europe, not become the laggard.
The idea that ceteris paribus if we'd remained in the EU we'd miraculously now be bigger than Germany, because we didn't Brexit, is just total and utter bullshit.
Nah just take a moment think of all the opportunities we've lost because we've spent a decade trying to polish the brexit turd.
I'm well familiar with the concept of opportunity cost.
However the data is not there, which is why studies claiming it rely upon bullshit assumptions, like that we'd have American growth or otherwise artificially inflating growth that was never there pre-Brexit.
We've outgrown Europe, "despite Brexit", there were not opportunities if we'd remained to outgrow them by so much more we'd now be bigger than Germany, a country with over 20% higher population than us.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Studies based on a garbage in, garbage out, methodology of saying we assume the UK would have grown more were it not for Brexit and our study says that as a result.
The real world data does not match those studies. The UK has not been the laggard.
real world data says 'not for eu' stamped items in my cupboards has a cost we all pay
What cost? Why do we pay it? How significant is that cost?
Actual data please. Because its not showing up in actual growth data, where we've outgrown Europe, not become the laggard.
The idea that ceteris paribus if we'd remained in the EU we'd miraculously now be bigger than Germany, because we didn't Brexit, is just total and utter bullshit.
Nah just take a moment think of all the opportunities we've lost because we've spent a decade trying to polish the brexit turd.
I'm well familiar with the concept of opportunity cost.
However the data is not there, which is why studies claiming it rely upon bullshit assumptions, like that we'd have American growth or otherwise artificially inflating growth that was never there pre-Brexit.
We've outgrown Europe, "despite Brexit", there were not opportunities if we'd remained to outgrow them by so much more we'd now be bigger than Germany, a country with over 20% higher population than us.
c'mon you weren't even familiar with the concept of not using your real name on a political website for a decade, now you think you're an economic expert
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Studies based on a garbage in, garbage out, methodology of saying we assume the UK would have grown more were it not for Brexit and our study says that as a result.
The real world data does not match those studies. The UK has not been the laggard.
real world data says 'not for eu' stamped items in my cupboards has a cost we all pay
What cost? Why do we pay it? How significant is that cost?
Actual data please. Because its not showing up in actual growth data, where we've outgrown Europe, not become the laggard.
The idea that ceteris paribus if we'd remained in the EU we'd miraculously now be bigger than Germany, because we didn't Brexit, is just total and utter bullshit.
Nah just take a moment think of all the opportunities we've lost because we've spent a decade trying to polish the brexit turd.
I'm well familiar with the concept of opportunity cost.
However the data is not there, which is why studies claiming it rely upon bullshit assumptions, like that we'd have American growth or otherwise artificially inflating growth that was never there pre-Brexit.
We've outgrown Europe, "despite Brexit", there were not opportunities if we'd remained to outgrow them by so much more we'd now be bigger than Germany, a country with over 20% higher population than us.
c'mon you weren't even familiar with the concept of not using your real name on a political website for a decade, now you think you're an economic expert
When I joined the site (back in 2007) most of the community here were using real names, so I chose to register with mine. It was only years later that it became an issue for me.
Economics is my background. IANAL, but economics is my field.
And the first lesson I had in Economics is one that has stuck with me for life, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me.
These asinine studies all fail as they have bullshit assumptions. Assuming we'd have grown faster if we remained, does not make it so. Check the real life data and it does not match.
It's pretty simple. brexit had an economic cost. even the leavers all agreed it would have an economic cost. so without that cost growth would have been higher. not sure why you getting your knickers in a twist about this.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Because the studies are based on dodgy assumptions.
You and I made a £100 bet, years ago, where I said that a decade after post-Covid the UK would have outgrown the EU per capita. I'm currently winning that bet.
The idea we'd have outgrown them by an additional 9% on top is for the birds. We weren't pre-Brexit.
Wouldn’t it now require us to be the same size as Germany. Who really believes if we had stayed in the EU we would now have the same size economy as Germany?
That post Brexit we are basically in the same place as France and Germany is pretty damning for the function of the EU.
It is useful to actually read the paper, at the NBER website. The actual finding is “6 to 8% lost growth”.
They look at the macro counterfactual and prepare five different models with different weighting approaches against 33 different countries.
They also have a micro model which examines firm level data and a 2000-strong survey of firm decision-makers.
Overall,
These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.
It’s all a little more convincing than Barty and Max’s debunked rantings on the matter.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Because the studies are based on dodgy assumptions.
You and I made a £100 bet, years ago, where I said that a decade after post-Covid the UK would have outgrown the EU per capita. I'm currently winning that bet.
The idea we'd have outgrown them by an additional 9% on top is for the birds. We weren't pre-Brexit.
Wouldn’t it now require us to be the same size as Germany. Who really believes if we had stayed in the EU we would now have the same size economy as Germany?
That post Brexit we are basically in the same place as France and Germany is pretty damning for the function of the EU.
You can see why some might want to fix the data.
Are you suggesting that EU moles have infiltrated the U.S.’s NBER?
It is useful to actually read the paper, at the NBER website. The actual finding is “6 to 8% lost growth”.
They look at the macro counterfactual and prepare five different models with different weighting approaches against 33 different countries.
They also have a micro model which examines firm level data and a 2000-strong survey of firm decision-makers.
Overall,
These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.
It’s all a little more convincing than Barty and Max’s debunked rantings on the matter.
A counterfactual that we would have had American growth.
Despite the fact we never did as EU members.
Despite the fact we have outgrown Germany and the Euro Area.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Because the studies are based on dodgy assumptions.
You and I made a £100 bet, years ago, where I said that a decade after post-Covid the UK would have outgrown the EU per capita. I'm currently winning that bet.
The idea we'd have outgrown them by an additional 9% on top is for the birds. We weren't pre-Brexit.
Wouldn’t it now require us to be the same size as Germany. Who really believes if we had stayed in the EU we would now have the same size economy as Germany?
That post Brexit we are basically in the same place as France and Germany is pretty damning for the function of the EU.
You can see why some might want to fix the data.
Are you suggesting that EU moles have infiltrated the U.S.’s NBER?
I'm suggesting their output has highly questionale outcomes - outcomes that don't pass the smell test.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Because the studies are based on dodgy assumptions.
You and I made a £100 bet, years ago, where I said that a decade after post-Covid the UK would have outgrown the EU per capita. I'm currently winning that bet.
The idea we'd have outgrown them by an additional 9% on top is for the birds. We weren't pre-Brexit.
Wouldn’t it now require us to be the same size as Germany. Who really believes if we had stayed in the EU we would now have the same size economy as Germany?
That post Brexit we are basically in the same place as France and Germany is pretty damning for the function of the EU.
You can see why some might want to fix the data.
Are you suggesting that EU moles have infiltrated the U.S.’s NBER?
I'm suggesting their output has highly questionale outcomes - outcomes that don't pass the smell test.
Outcomes generated by highly questionable assumptions.
It is useful to actually read the paper, at the NBER website. The actual finding is “6 to 8% lost growth”.
They look at the macro counterfactual and prepare five different models with different weighting approaches against 33 different countries.
They also have a micro model which examines firm level data and a 2000-strong survey of firm decision-makers.
Overall,
These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.
It’s all a little more convincing than Barty and Max’s debunked rantings on the matter.
No it isn't, no it isn't, no it isn't.
(grits teeth)
Look, I hate being on the same side as Barty, but this is predicting the past. Models or surveys are contra-indicated, since we know the growth UK had since 2016 and the growth that other similar countries had. All that is needed is a simple comparison. I am fed up with people applying models to the simplest phenomena. There is no need to build a model for this, just as there is no need to build a model for today's weather: you just look out of the window. Empirical fact defeats theoretical constructs.
@Will___lloyd The best Tom Stoppard profile was written by Kenneth Tynan for the New Yorker in 1977:
“Essential to remember that Stoppard is an émigré. A director who has staged several of his plays told me the other day, ‘You have to be foreign to write English with that kind of hypnotized brilliance.’”
“Her English is too good he said, which clearly indicates that she is foreign. For as others are instructed in their native language English people are arren’t And although she may have studied with an expert dialectician and grammarian, I can tell that She was born Hungarian!”
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Similar studies were written that immigration didn't suppress wages. The writers of them are starting with a conclusion they like and working backwards. The idea that the UK could have grown, on average, 0.8-1.0% per year faster than it has done since 2016 is fanciful. If the study had suggested 1-2% total and 0.1-0.3% per year it might have some credibility, 8% less isn't within the realm of possibility for an economy like the UK which has high debt and a decades long low productivity issue that predated Brexit.
I mean using the US as the major weighting just screams that the writers of this study haven't ever been to the UK, seen the effects of the welfare state and low risk, low investment culture we've had for the better part of 20 years.
Also, the US has had an extremely favourable run fuelled by public borrowing on the back of USD being the global reserve currency. That isn't something this country will ever been able to replicate, in or out of the EU the UK is always going to be at the mercy of bond markets which means the opportunity to just massively increase the deficit and pump the economy with fiscal stimulus is extremely limited.
The methodology of all of these studies has the flaw that it assumes an inflexion point, and if the data fail to show one, it gets explained away by creating an implausible counterfactual. Meanwhile the causes of the actual inflection point of 2008 remain poorly understood.
Wot?
The causes are well understood?
At a very basic level our principal growth driver took a bath and has never really recovered. A more sophisticated analysts indicates that the growth in the financial services industry for much of the 00s was an artificial bubble
It is useful to actually read the paper, at the NBER website. The actual finding is “6 to 8% lost growth”.
They look at the macro counterfactual and prepare five different models with different weighting approaches against 33 different countries.
They also have a micro model which examines firm level data and a 2000-strong survey of firm decision-makers.
Overall,
These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.
It’s all a little more convincing than Barty and Max’s debunked rantings on the matter.
Except their counter factual - that we would have massively outgrown France and Germany - isn’t particularly plausible
In the days after Alaska, a European intelligence agency distributed a hard-copy report in a manila envelope to some of the continent’s most senior national security officials, who were shocked by the contents: Inside were details of the commercial and economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.
Witkoff has worked closely with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, former Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, has been all but frozen out of serious talks, and last week said he is leaving the government.
To understand the story behind the administration’s Russia negotiations, The Wall Street Journal spoke to dozens of officials, diplomats, and former and current intelligence officers from the U.S., Russia and Europe, and American lobbyists and investors close to the administration.
The picture that emerges is a remarkable story of business leaders working outside the traditional lines of diplomacy to cement a peace agreement with business deals...
The former head of George Bush's Office of Legal Counsel.
Harvard Law School’s Jack Goldsmith:
“In short, if the Post’s facts are correct, it appears that Special Operations Forces committed murder when the ‘two men were blown apart in the water, as the Post put it.’” https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1994623896146821613
The US is beginning to resemble Russia, as a country which operates by presidential dictat.
The rest of the constitutional apparatus - the legislature, the laws themselves relating to government, and the administrative apparatus responsible for them, is largely ignored or bypassed. And a class of oligarchs which corruptly pays for, and benefits from a special relationship with the presidency seems also to be developing.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Similar studies were written that immigration didn't suppress wages. The writers of them are starting with a conclusion they like and working backwards. The idea that the UK could have grown, on average, 0.8-1.0% per year faster than it has done since 2016 is fanciful. If the study had suggested 1-2% total and 0.1-0.3% per year it might have some credibility, 8% less isn't within the realm of possibility for an economy like the UK which has high debt and a decades long low productivity issue that predated Brexit.
I mean using the US as the major weighting just screams that the writers of this study haven't ever been to the UK, seen the effects of the welfare state and low risk, low investment culture we've had for the better part of 20 years.
Also, the US has had an extremely favourable run fuelled by public borrowing on the back of USD being the global reserve currency. That isn't something this country will ever been able to replicate, in or out of the EU the UK is always going to be at the mercy of bond markets which means the opportunity to just massively increase the deficit and pump the economy with fiscal stimulus is extremely limited.
The methodology of all of these studies has the flaw that it assumes an inflexion point, and if the data fail to show one, it gets explained away by creating an implausible counterfactual. Meanwhile the causes of the actual inflection point of 2008 remain poorly understood.
Wot?
The causes are well understood?
At a very basic level our principal growth driver took a bath and has never really recovered. A more sophisticated analysts indicates that the growth in the financial services industry for much of the 00s was an artificial bubble
An even more sophisticated analysis is the British economy expanded through the Labour years until the global financial crisis when it crashed, whereas US growth simply plateaued, and since then America has dramatically outperformed His Majesty's United Kingdom. In other words, look not to Brexit but to George Osborne's Plan A austerity (which probably also played a large part in Brexit!).
ETA it would also be interesting to look at Covid as another potential inflection point.
This video of Corbyn being confronted at a Your Party meeting for not being anti Zionist enough is quite something, exasperated he says "I'm fed up with being painted into a corner of being seen as a pro Zionist" then says "what do you think I've been doing with my life?" only to be met with "it was under your leadership the IHRA definition of antisemitism was adopted, you condemn the resistance in Palestine, you haven't called for one unitary state..."
Hmm. It makes you wonder if the charges of weaponised antisemitism being used to oust Corbyn might have something in them after all.
It is useful to actually read the paper, at the NBER website. The actual finding is “6 to 8% lost growth”.
They look at the macro counterfactual and prepare five different models with different weighting approaches against 33 different countries.
They also have a micro model which examines firm level data and a 2000-strong survey of firm decision-makers.
Overall,
These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.
It’s all a little more convincing than Barty and Max’s debunked rantings on the matter.
Except their counter factual - that we would have massively outgrown France and Germany - isn’t particularly plausible
But wasn't that the point of Brexit? To let us grow faster than France and Germany?
It is useful to actually read the paper, at the NBER website. The actual finding is “6 to 8% lost growth”.
They look at the macro counterfactual and prepare five different models with different weighting approaches against 33 different countries.
They also have a micro model which examines firm level data and a 2000-strong survey of firm decision-makers.
Overall,
These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.
It’s all a little more convincing than Barty and Max’s debunked rantings on the matter.
Except their counter factual - that we would have massively outgrown France and Germany - isn’t particularly plausible
But wasn't that the point of Brexit? To let us grow faster than France and Germany?
The point of Brexit was to give our sovereignty away to the US rather than sharing it with Europe.
Economics had nothing to do with it. At least not in a positive manner.
The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".
The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.
And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).
Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.
Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.
"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."
The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".
The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.
Interesting weighting. I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.
I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.
However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit. You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.
Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.
Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.
I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.
The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.
We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.
Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you? And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?
Similar studies were written that immigration didn't suppress wages. The writers of them are starting with a conclusion they like and working backwards. The idea that the UK could have grown, on average, 0.8-1.0% per year faster than it has done since 2016 is fanciful. If the study had suggested 1-2% total and 0.1-0.3% per year it might have some credibility, 8% less isn't within the realm of possibility for an economy like the UK which has high debt and a decades long low productivity issue that predated Brexit.
I mean using the US as the major weighting just screams that the writers of this study haven't ever been to the UK, seen the effects of the welfare state and low risk, low investment culture we've had for the better part of 20 years.
Also, the US has had an extremely favourable run fuelled by public borrowing on the back of USD being the global reserve currency. That isn't something this country will ever been able to replicate, in or out of the EU the UK is always going to be at the mercy of bond markets which means the opportunity to just massively increase the deficit and pump the economy with fiscal stimulus is extremely limited.
The methodology of all of these studies has the flaw that it assumes an inflexion point, and if the data fail to show one, it gets explained away by creating an implausible counterfactual. Meanwhile the causes of the actual inflection point of 2008 remain poorly understood.
Wot?
The causes are well understood?
At a very basic level our principal growth driver took a bath and has never really recovered. A more sophisticated analysts indicates that the growth in the financial services industry for much of the 00s was an artificial bubble
An even more sophisticated analysis is the British economy expanded through the Labour years until the global financial crisis when it crashed, whereas US growth simply plateaued, and since then America has dramatically outperformed His Majesty's United Kingdom. In other words, look not to Brexit but to George Osborne's Plan A austerity (which probably also played a large part in Brexit!).
ETA it would also be interesting to look at Covid as another potential inflection point.
All those things are combinative rather than alternatives. There is no one cause of our economic situation.
The US is beginning to resemble Russia, as a country which operates by presidential dictat.
The rest of the constitutional apparatus - the legislature, the laws themselves relating to government, and the administrative apparatus responsible for them, is largely ignored or bypassed. And a class of oligarchs which corruptly pays for, and benefits from a special relationship with the presidency seems also to be developing.
Of course the US electorate still has a chance to kick out the whole corrupt crew, and it seems increasingly unlikely that they will win at the ballot box by legitimate means.
Trump approval rating drops to new low
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5626295-donald-trump-approval-rating-survey/ President Trump’s approval rating reached its lowest point 10 months into his second term and the lowest since he left office in 2021, according to a new survey. The Gallup poll, released on Friday, shows Trump’s approval rating sitting at 36 percent, with 60 percent disapproving of how he’s handled the job since returning to the Oval Office in January. The number is one point lower than where it was in July, though the pollster showed the president stable between 40 percent and 41 percent in the months in between. His lowest Gallup score — 34 percent — came following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack at the end of his first term..
Indiana Republican with disabled child rejects redistricting bid after Trump-Walz spat
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5626637-indiana-senator-opposes-trump-redistricting/ A Republican state Senator from Indiana on Friday said he will vote against President Trump’s redistricting effort in his state after the president used a slur demeaning people with disabilities in his online spat with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D). “Many of you have asked my position on redistricting,” state Sen. Michael Bohacek (R) wrote in a Facebook post. “I have been an unapologetic advocate for people with intellectual disabilities since the birth of my second daughter. Those of you that don’t know me or my family might not know that my daughter has Down Syndrome. “This is not the first time our president has used these insulting and derogatory references and his choices of words have consequences,” Bohacek continued. “I will be voting NO on redistricting, perhaps he can use the next 10 months to convince voters that his policies and behavior deserve a congressional majority.”..
When the Tory leader ranted that Rachel Reeves will go down in history as the “country’s worst ever chancellor”, the name of Kwasi Kwarteng must have slipped her mind even though they sat together in Liz Truss’s cabinet. More sophisticated critiques of the chancellor are available and they are also more piercing. One gloomy assessment from within Labour’s own ranks is that this failed to be the game-changing budget needed by a deeply unpopular chancellor hitched to a deeply unpopular prime minister presiding over a deeply unpopular government.
Stealth taxes stop working politically when people notice them. Though she left income tax and national insurance alone in the end, voters are nevertheless now more likely than not to think that Labour has broken its signature manifesto promise not to raise taxes on working people. This is despite the fact that it was a “buy now, pay later” Klarna budget.
If things go very right for the government, the increased fiscal headroom created by the chancellor could turn into a war-chest to scatter sweeteners at the voters before the next election. If things go awry, then Ms Reeves, or whoever inherits her poisoned chalice, will be coming back for even more tax increases. There was the strong impression of hard decisions being swerved…
Another missing piece is the answer to the over-arching question: what is the point of this Labour government? Growth was once heralded as the number one mission. Sir Keir Starmer will make a speech on the topic on Monday, perhaps trying to compensate for the absence of much about it in the budget. The “mission board” that was supposed to drive change has been abolished, while some cabinet ministers I speak to say they find Number 10 internally confused and divided about its attitude towards wealth creation.
A great peril for Labour is that its enemies will successfully define the government’s primary purpose as higher taxes for more welfare. That combo has rarely been a recipe for either national prosperity or electoral success
When the Tory leader ranted that Rachel Reeves will go down in history as the “country’s worst ever chancellor”, the name of Kwasi Kwarteng must have slipped her mind even though they sat together in Liz Truss’s cabinet. More sophisticated critiques of the chancellor are available and they are also more piercing. One gloomy assessment from within Labour’s own ranks is that this failed to be the game-changing budget needed by a deeply unpopular chancellor hitched to a deeply unpopular prime minister presiding over a deeply unpopular government.
Stealth taxes stop working politically when people notice them. Though she left income tax and national insurance alone in the end, voters are nevertheless now more likely than not to think that Labour has broken its signature manifesto promise not to raise taxes on working people. This is despite the fact that it was a “buy now, pay later” Klarna budget.
If things go very right for the government, the increased fiscal headroom created by the chancellor could turn into a war-chest to scatter sweeteners at the voters before the next election. If things go awry, then Ms Reeves, or whoever inherits her poisoned chalice, will be coming back for even more tax increases. There was the strong impression of hard decisions being swerved…
Another missing piece is the answer to the over-arching question: what is the point of this Labour government? Growth was once heralded as the number one mission. Sir Keir Starmer will make a speech on the topic on Monday, perhaps trying to compensate for the absence of much about it in the budget. The “mission board” that was supposed to drive change has been abolished, while some cabinet ministers I speak to say they find Number 10 internally confused and divided about its attitude towards wealth creation.
A great peril for Labour is that its enemies will successfully define the government’s primary purpose as higher taxes for more welfare. That combo has rarely been a recipe for either national prosperity or electoral success
Another missing piece is the answer to the over-arching question: what is the point of this Labour government?
The question that hovers over the three traditional parties, to which Keir, Kemi and the bloke who falls in the water have no answer, hence the rise of NOTA. Perhaps by 2029 voters might also ask what is the point of Greens and Reform?
As to taxes and manifesto promises, and hair-splitting over the OBR, perhaps Ronald Reagan had it right – are you better off now than four years ago? Is it easier to buy food or pay rent? Easier to see a doctor or dentist? Easier to find a job?
If not, Kemi will say to spin the wheel again; Nige and Zack to upend the board and let the pieces land where they may.
If things go very right for the government, the increased fiscal headroom created by the chancellor could turn into a war-chest to scatter sweeteners at the voters before the next election. .
That's an exceedingly optimistic assessment given how many of these tax rises will kick in 18 months before the election and actually need paying in the year before it.
F1: got to be honest, didn't see huge value here. Split one stake 60/40, with the larger part at 2.45 on Hulkenberg for points, smaller part on Ferrari (5.25) to have 1 or 2 cars not classified. Car's looked like a dog all weekend.
If things go very right for the government, the increased fiscal headroom created by the chancellor could turn into a war-chest to scatter sweeteners at the voters before the next election. .
That's an exceedingly optimistic assessment given how many of these tax rises will kick in 18 months before the election and actually need paying in the year before it.
The sweeteners could be abandoning some of those items, though?
In business, it’s known that a company that messes up and then deals very well with the resulting complaint can end up more popular than a company that provided good service in the first place. Maybe that’s what our cunning government has in mind?
It could, for example, make a very good launchpad for a new Labour leader and PM, wanting to before the election that things are different under his or her new leadership
When the Tory leader ranted that Rachel Reeves will go down in history as the “country’s worst ever chancellor”, the name of Kwasi Kwarteng must have slipped her mind even though they sat together in Liz Truss’s cabinet. More sophisticated critiques of the chancellor are available and they are also more piercing. One gloomy assessment from within Labour’s own ranks is that this failed to be the game-changing budget needed by a deeply unpopular chancellor hitched to a deeply unpopular prime minister presiding over a deeply unpopular government.
Stealth taxes stop working politically when people notice them. Though she left income tax and national insurance alone in the end, voters are nevertheless now more likely than not to think that Labour has broken its signature manifesto promise not to raise taxes on working people. This is despite the fact that it was a “buy now, pay later” Klarna budget.
If things go very right for the government, the increased fiscal headroom created by the chancellor could turn into a war-chest to scatter sweeteners at the voters before the next election. If things go awry, then Ms Reeves, or whoever inherits her poisoned chalice, will be coming back for even more tax increases. There was the strong impression of hard decisions being swerved…
Another missing piece is the answer to the over-arching question: what is the point of this Labour government? Growth was once heralded as the number one mission. Sir Keir Starmer will make a speech on the topic on Monday, perhaps trying to compensate for the absence of much about it in the budget. The “mission board” that was supposed to drive change has been abolished, while some cabinet ministers I speak to say they find Number 10 internally confused and divided about its attitude towards wealth creation.
A great peril for Labour is that its enemies will successfully define the government’s primary purpose as higher taxes for more welfare. That combo has rarely been a recipe for either national prosperity or electoral success
Have we had "they're spending Rishi's golden legacy yet"?
SKS and Reeves will be under threat from within the Labour party as currently Labour have a large majority and (if you believe the OBR) an amazing amount of fiscal headroom to provide largesse for pet projects - despite Brexit, Covid and the slow demise of the City. And again, if the OBR is correct, it's quite an achievement for an economy to apparently shrug off these economic shocks in such as short time.
Perhaps, as the Australians opine, we're all whinging Poms.
It is useful to actually read the paper, at the NBER website. The actual finding is “6 to 8% lost growth”.
They look at the macro counterfactual and prepare five different models with different weighting approaches against 33 different countries.
They also have a micro model which examines firm level data and a 2000-strong survey of firm decision-makers.
Overall,
These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.
It’s all a little more convincing than Barty and Max’s debunked rantings on the matter.
Except their counter factual - that we would have massively outgrown France and Germany - isn’t particularly plausible
But wasn't that the point of Brexit? To let us grow faster than France and Germany?
The point of Brexit was to give our sovereignty away to the US rather than sharing it with Europe.
Economics had nothing to do with it. At least not in a positive manner.
The point of Brexit was to allow one part of the political elite to get one over on another part. Which it did.
And the idea that there wouldn't be an economic hit is for the birds. Remember Boris's Nike Tick analogy? It's just that the bit where the UK grows really fast is taking a long time to start.
It is useful to actually read the paper, at the NBER website. The actual finding is “6 to 8% lost growth”.
They look at the macro counterfactual and prepare five different models with different weighting approaches against 33 different countries.
They also have a micro model which examines firm level data and a 2000-strong survey of firm decision-makers.
Overall,
These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.
It’s all a little more convincing than Barty and Max’s debunked rantings on the matter.
Except their counter factual - that we would have massively outgrown France and Germany - isn’t particularly plausible
But wasn't that the point of Brexit? To let us grow faster than France and Germany?
The point of Brexit was to give our sovereignty away to the US rather than sharing it with Europe.
Economics had nothing to do with it. At least not in a positive manner.
The point of Brexit was to allow one part of the political elite to get one over on another part. Which it did.
And the idea that there wouldn't be an economic hit is for the birds. Remember Boris's Nike Tick analogy? It's just that the bit where the UK grows really fast is taking a long time to start.
Comments
That's the problem, they don't need to really believe it, just say its the case and because of Brexit and people will swallow any old shite, without doing a bullshit sniff test first.
I mean using the US as the major weighting just screams that the writers of this study haven't ever been to the UK, seen the effects of the welfare state and low risk, low investment culture we've had for the better part of 20 years.
Also, the US has had an extremely favourable run fuelled by public borrowing on the back of USD being the global reserve currency. That isn't something this country will ever been able to replicate, in or out of the EU the UK is always going to be at the mercy of bond markets which means the opportunity to just massively increase the deficit and pump the economy with fiscal stimulus is extremely limited.
If they wanted a realistic comparison then Germany and France would have been the major weightings.
But that wouldn't have given the desired headline.
But membership? No. It’s done and dusted. We will not want to join on any terms that would be offered , or be welcome. We would be seen as a disruptive influence, as we were first time when we insisted we only wanted to buy and sell things to each other and kept on saying no.
This video of Corbyn being confronted at a Your Party meeting for not being anti Zionist enough is quite something, exasperated he says "I'm fed up with being painted into a corner of being seen as a pro Zionist" then says "what do you think I've been doing with my life?" only to be met with "it was under your leadership the IHRA definition of antisemitism was adopted, you condemn the resistance in Palestine, you haven't called for one unitary state..."
In or out of the EU these problems would basically all be the same.
Actual data please. Because its not showing up in actual growth data, where we've outgrown Europe, not become the laggard.
The idea that ceteris paribus if we'd remained in the EU we'd miraculously now be bigger than Germany, because we didn't Brexit, is just total and utter bullshit.
However the data is not there, which is why studies claiming it rely upon bullshit assumptions, like that we'd have American growth or otherwise artificially inflating growth that was never there pre-Brexit.
We've outgrown Europe, "despite Brexit", there were not opportunities if we'd remained to outgrow them by so much more we'd now be bigger than Germany, a country with over 20% higher population than us.
Economics is my background. IANAL, but economics is my field.
And the first lesson I had in Economics is one that has stuck with me for life, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me.
These asinine studies all fail as they have bullshit assumptions. Assuming we'd have grown faster if we remained, does not make it so. Check the real life data and it does not match.
You can see why some might want to fix the data.
The actual finding is “6 to 8% lost growth”.
They look at the macro counterfactual and prepare five different models with different weighting approaches against 33 different countries.
They also have a micro model which examines firm level data and a 2000-strong survey of firm decision-makers.
Overall,
These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.
It’s all a little more convincing than Barty and Max’s debunked rantings on the matter.
Despite the fact we never did as EU members.
Despite the fact we have outgrown Germany and the Euro Area.
There is only one word for that counterfactual.
Garbage in, garbage out.
(grits teeth)
Look, I hate being on the same side as Barty, but this is predicting the past. Models or surveys are contra-indicated, since we know the growth UK had since 2016 and the growth that other similar countries had. All that is needed is a simple comparison. I am fed up with people applying models to the simplest phenomena. There is no need to build a model for this, just as there is no need to build a model for today's weather: you just look out of the window. Empirical fact defeats theoretical constructs.
For as others are instructed in their native language English people are arren’t
And although she may have studied with an expert dialectician and grammarian,
I can tell that
She was born
Hungarian!”
The causes are well understood?
At a very basic level our principal growth driver took a bath and has never really recovered. A more sophisticated analysts indicates that the growth in the financial services industry for much of the 00s was an artificial bubble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugpbD_6UahU
Reuters reports Rubio is going to skip the NATO ministerial next week, at critical moment in Ukraine peace talks.
Former NATO spox: "I can’t remember anything like this in recent history."
https://x.com/NicholasVinocur/status/1994772141750063155
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/russia-u-s-peace-business-ties-4db9b290?st=i6sQYZ&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
...Career officials in the office overseeing sanctions at the Treasury Department have at times learned details of Witkoff’s meetings with Moscow from their British counterparts.
In the days after Alaska, a European intelligence agency distributed a hard-copy report in a manila envelope to some of the continent’s most senior national security officials, who were shocked by the contents: Inside were details of the commercial and economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.
Witkoff has worked closely with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, former Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, has been all but frozen out of serious talks, and last week said he is leaving the government.
To understand the story behind the administration’s Russia negotiations, The Wall Street Journal spoke to dozens of officials, diplomats, and former and current intelligence officers from the U.S., Russia and Europe, and American lobbyists and investors close to the administration.
The picture that emerges is a remarkable story of business leaders working outside the traditional lines of diplomacy to cement a peace agreement with business deals...
Harvard Law School’s Jack Goldsmith:
“In short, if the Post’s facts are correct, it appears that Special Operations Forces committed murder when the ‘two men were blown apart in the water, as the Post put it.’”
https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1994623896146821613
The rest of the constitutional apparatus - the legislature, the laws themselves relating to government, and the administrative apparatus responsible for them, is largely ignored or bypassed.
And a class of oligarchs which corruptly pays for, and benefits from a special relationship with the presidency seems also to be developing.
ETA it would also be interesting to look at Covid as another potential inflection point.
Economics had nothing to do with it.
At least not in a positive manner.
Trump approval rating drops to new low
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5626295-donald-trump-approval-rating-survey/
President Trump’s approval rating reached its lowest point 10 months into his second term and the lowest since he left office in 2021, according to a new survey.
The Gallup poll, released on Friday, shows Trump’s approval rating sitting at 36 percent, with 60 percent disapproving of how he’s handled the job since returning to the Oval Office in January. The number is one point lower than where it was in July, though the pollster showed the president stable between 40 percent and 41 percent in the months in between.
His lowest Gallup score — 34 percent — came following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack at the end of his first term..
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5626637-indiana-senator-opposes-trump-redistricting/
A Republican state Senator from Indiana on Friday said he will vote against President Trump’s redistricting effort in his state after the president used a slur demeaning people with disabilities in his online spat with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D).
“Many of you have asked my position on redistricting,” state Sen. Michael Bohacek (R) wrote in a Facebook post. “I have been an unapologetic advocate for people with intellectual disabilities since the birth of my second daughter. Those of you that don’t know me or my family might not know that my daughter has Down Syndrome.
“This is not the first time our president has used these insulting and derogatory references and his choices of words have consequences,” Bohacek continued. “I will be voting NO on redistricting, perhaps he can use the next 10 months to convince voters that his policies and behavior deserve a congressional majority.”..
When the Tory leader ranted that Rachel Reeves will go down in history as the “country’s worst ever chancellor”, the name of Kwasi Kwarteng must have slipped her mind even though they sat together in Liz Truss’s cabinet. More sophisticated critiques of the chancellor are available and they are also more piercing. One gloomy assessment from within Labour’s own ranks is that this failed to be the game-changing budget needed by a deeply unpopular chancellor hitched to a deeply unpopular prime minister presiding over a deeply unpopular government.
Stealth taxes stop working politically when people notice them. Though she left income tax and national insurance alone in the end, voters are nevertheless now more likely than not to think that Labour has broken its signature manifesto promise not to raise taxes on working people. This is despite the fact that it was a “buy now, pay later” Klarna budget.
If things go very right for the government, the increased fiscal headroom created by the chancellor could turn into a war-chest to scatter sweeteners at the voters before the next election. If things go awry, then Ms Reeves, or whoever inherits her poisoned chalice, will be coming back for even more tax increases. There was the strong impression of hard decisions being swerved…
Another missing piece is the answer to the over-arching question: what is the point of this Labour government? Growth was once heralded as the number one mission. Sir Keir Starmer will make a speech on the topic on Monday, perhaps trying to compensate for the absence of much about it in the budget. The “mission board” that was supposed to drive change has been abolished, while some cabinet ministers I speak to say they find Number 10 internally confused and divided about its attitude towards wealth creation.
A great peril for Labour is that its enemies will successfully define the government’s primary purpose as higher taxes for more welfare. That combo has rarely been a recipe for either national prosperity or electoral success
The question that hovers over the three traditional parties, to which Keir, Kemi and the bloke who falls in the water have no answer, hence the rise of NOTA. Perhaps by 2029 voters might also ask what is the point of Greens and Reform?
As to taxes and manifesto promises, and hair-splitting over the OBR, perhaps Ronald Reagan had it right – are you better off now than four years ago? Is it easier to buy food or pay rent? Easier to see a doctor or dentist? Easier to find a job?
If not, Kemi will say to spin the wheel again; Nige and Zack to upend the board and let the pieces land where they may.
F1: going to start writing the penultimate pre-race ramble of the season. Hopefully have that up (markets permitting) within the hour.
NEW THREAD
Betting PostF1: got to be honest, didn't see huge value here. Split one stake 60/40, with the larger part at 2.45 on Hulkenberg for points, smaller part on Ferrari (5.25) to have 1 or 2 cars not classified. Car's looked like a dog all weekend.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/11/qatar-2025-pre-race.html
In business, it’s known that a company that messes up and then deals very well with the resulting complaint can end up more popular than a company that provided good service in the first place. Maybe that’s what our cunning government has in mind?
It could, for example, make a very good launchpad for a new Labour leader and PM, wanting to before the election that things are different under his or her new leadership
SKS and Reeves will be under threat from within the Labour party as currently Labour have a large majority and (if you believe the OBR) an amazing amount of fiscal headroom to provide largesse for pet projects - despite Brexit, Covid and the slow demise of the City. And again, if the OBR is correct, it's quite an achievement for an economy to apparently shrug off these economic shocks in such as short time.
Perhaps, as the Australians opine, we're all whinging Poms.
And the idea that there wouldn't be an economic hit is for the birds. Remember Boris's Nike Tick analogy? It's just that the bit where the UK grows really fast is taking a long time to start.