Skip to content

Brexit effect: employment – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,174
edited April 20 in General
Brexit effect: employment – politicalbetting.com

This is the second of four threads on analysing the much-quoted claim that leaving the EU has reduced the UK’s GDP by 6-8%, often shortened to 8%, specifically contained in this study.  I promised three in the last thread, not four, but, to avoid overly-long articles, I have split the second thread into two.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    Precisely.

    Starmer should have resigned because he chose Mandelson.

    He didn’t. He’s not going to suddenly resign now. The media is extremely excitable.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,188

    FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    He won’t resign but he should resign if he has any integrity.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,035
    Taz said:

    FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    He won’t resign but he should resign if he has any integrity.
    Nobody has integrity in politics these days
  • I would like to ask Dan Hodges why he backed Mandelson in the first place.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,188

    Taz said:

    FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    He won’t resign but he should resign if he has any integrity.
    Nobody has integrity in politics these days
    Sadly that seems to be the case.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,930
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    He won’t resign but he should resign if he has any integrity.
    Nobody has integrity in politics these days
    Sadly that seems to be the case.
    Good morning, everyone.

    I'm reading Appian's account of the Civil Wars. Caesar's just been murdered, mostly by people he had pardoned rather than punished for siding with Pompey.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,691
    Taz said:

    FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    He won’t resign but he should resign if he has any integrity.
    Should have resigned, as pointed out upthread.
    That he didn't means he's likely to soldier on, having significantly damaged his credibility and authority.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,691

    I would like to ask Dan Hodges why he backed Mandelson in the first place.

    I'd prefer never to hear from him again.
    But that's as unlikely as is Starmer resigning this week.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,930
    On-topic: Cheers for this article, Mr. Fishing. It's always important to not just accept figures at face value. While AI's wrongness is often commented upon, people are just as capable of making mistakes, or unwarranted/unexplained assumptions.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,628
    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,937

    I would like to ask Dan Hodges why he backed Mandelson in the first place.

    I think you’ve nailed the really important question in this whole sordid affair; how can some hack get away with such dangerous inconsistency. If we allow that sort of thing, where will it end?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    Once in the job you’ll have to drag Starmer kicking and screaming out of No 10.

    The economic impact of the Iran War makes it even more unlikely he goes this year . Which leadership candidate wants to take over as the economy heads south and inflation spikes.

  • I would like to ask Dan Hodges why he backed Mandelson in the first place.

    I think you’ve nailed the really important question in this whole sordid affair; how can some hack get away with such dangerous inconsistency. If we allow that sort of thing, where will it end?
    Thanks for your support Blanche.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,691
    edited April 20
    On topic, Brexit did result in a pretty large increase in civil service numbers...

    You voted for a bigger blob.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472
    One and a half million more people in the country if we'd voted Remain?

    A jolly good thing we left then.

    With the Bozo wave, if anything, net migration may have been lower if we'd not left the EU.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287
    I think there’s a chance the Boriswave wasn’t entirely down to… Boris. The post-COVID migration wasn’t unique to the UK.

    OTOH, I think you could have made an even stronger argument if you hadn’t incorrectly compared gross to net migration. So quite a compelling argument.

    The productivity bit is the most interesting to me though, because there are so many indicators suggesting it was damaged, and no real explanation as to what Brexit effects helped it. Looking forward to that.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,146

    FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    Precisely.

    Starmer should have resigned because he chose Mandelson.

    He didn’t. He’s not going to suddenly resign now. The media is extremely excitable.
    Today programme on a concerted "Starmer out" push this morning. They even interviewed a conflict humanitarian about the current human cost of conflict, turns out he's a friend of Olly Robbins, so they asked him about what a great guy Olly was and are now repeating that part of the interview. (Nothing about the human cost of current conflicts getting repeated).

    Nick Robinson gone "full Robbie Gibb" in a very hysterical manner.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,874

    One and a half million more people in the country if we'd voted Remain?

    A jolly good thing we left then.

    With the Bozo wave, if anything, net migration may have been lower if we'd not left the EU.

    One of the hilarities of Brexit is how the UK replaced extreme commuters with long-haul people, here for the long haul.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,411
    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Rightly so. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Won't stop Remainers/Rejoiners trotting it out, unquestioned mind.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,553

    FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    Precisely.

    Starmer should have resigned because he chose Mandelson.

    He didn’t. He’s not going to suddenly resign now. The media is extremely excitable.
    "C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute"
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472
    Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.

    But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,930

    Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.

    But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?

    Perhaps.

    If there is genuinely no better alternative then replacing Starmer doesn't make sense.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,342
    Interesting article. Are we worse off? Yes. Can we definitively quantify that? No.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287
    edited April 20
    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Other papers are available. The question here is whether the damage from Brexit was 2%, 8% or something in between. Even the most optimistic studies don’t claim there wasn’t (and isn’t) any damage to the economy.

    Whether that damage was worth it is up to the reader.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    Nigelb said:

    On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week.
    For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.

    Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.

    But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.

    1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.

    2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.

    Different mechanisms. Same disease. Both working.

    <13% of patients survive 5 years. That number is about to change.</i>
    https://x.com/BoWang87/status/2046080745819824614

    *Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.

    Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,342
    Two attempts to export food samples to the EU have both failed. Next stage? Human mule...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,553
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    He won’t resign but he should resign if he has any integrity.
    Nobody has integrity in politics these days
    Sadly that seems to be the case.
    The classic case of "integrity in politics" was Carrington resigning over the Falklands.

    Which protected the officials would had suppressed intelligence on what was about to happen.

    This included destroying the career of an SIS guy in Argentina - who persisted in sending reports of the build up. Being right made the offence even worse. So he was still pushed out, after the war.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,411

    Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.

    But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?

    Perhaps.

    If there is genuinely no better alternative then replacing Starmer doesn't make sense.
    Starmer is a weasel, employing weasally language to evade reponsibility for Mandelson's appointment.

    Beware weasels. If Labour hasn't got anybody better to put forward as PM than a weasel, it should fold up its tent and depart.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,553
    OT

    The article boils down to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

    If I claim that I could grow the economy faster than the rest of Europe, employ millions more people etc. then it up to me to provide evidence of where the growth in the economy comes from. And there the people to be employed come from and where they get jobs.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    edited April 20

    Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.

    But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?

    Ironically the Iran War and its economic impact might help Starmer stay on longer .

    Which leadership candidate wants to take over with that economic impact looming ? Aswell as this Starmer might have banked a little goodwill from his position on the Iran War.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,433
    Quick review of Alexander's appearance on R4 Today at 8.10; this is where he is unable to defend the PM:

    1) Unable to defend PeterM being appointed and in place before vetting, in the circumstances where it was known that PeterM was known to have significant links and form

    2) Entirely unable to account for how people, especially Robbins, are sacked for an alleged error of judgment and at the same time the PM is agreed by Alexander and the PM himself to have made a major error in appointing PeterM, against much senior advice, but unlike others he is staying on and blaming everyone else.

    3) Unable to deal with the 'Casablanca' point. Everyone, including the PM, knows the PM was not shocked, angry or surprised at finding out that PeterM had security vetting problems. He was angry that it came out inconveniently due to parliament doing its job for the public.

    Alexander is usually good, today he was terrible because it was so obvious he was being told to make bricks without straw. Worth a listen.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325
    Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?

  • eekeek Posts: 33,922

    OT

    The article boils down to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

    If I claim that I could grow the economy faster than the rest of Europe, employ millions more people etc. then it up to me to provide evidence of where the growth in the economy comes from. And there the people to be employed come from and where they get jobs.

    There is an argument that us leaving the EU will have damaged both the UK and EU economies but it can’t be much beyond margin of error changes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,913

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    FPT re Starmer.

    Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s the material points. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.

    He won’t resign but he should resign if he has any integrity.
    Nobody has integrity in politics these days
    Sadly that seems to be the case.
    Good morning, everyone.

    I'm reading Appian's account of the Civil Wars. Caesar's just been murdered, mostly by people he had pardoned rather than punished for siding with Pompey.
    Ecclesiastes 1:9

    "That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,866
    Thanks Fishing. This study makes me think of The Day to Day:

    "Would you mind telling me how the plant can function on minus 10,000 workers?"

    "I don't know Chris, you tell me!"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,691
    Battlebus said:

    Nigelb said:

    On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week.
    For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.

    Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.

    But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.

    1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.

    2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.

    Different mechanisms. Same disease. Both working.

    <13% of patients survive 5 years. That number is about to change.</i>
    https://x.com/BoWang87/status/2046080745819824614

    *Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.

    Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
    It's a phase I trial - they don't.
    Such trials are intended to test only safety of the novel treatment; that it has shown what appear to be remarkable results is fortuitous, but strongly suggests the treatment has efficacy.
    As I said, there's a PII trial already ongoing.

    Biontech has a $26bn market cap; they're not doing this to fish for a grant.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,433
    nico67 said:

    Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?

    Interesting question, but this has got legal and legalistic. The question needs to be asked and analysed about exact and specific words and occasions in the HoC, where in general formulaic expressions were used. There is a lot of Hansard to trawl

    This one from 4th Feb is interesting:

    Badenoch:
    ‘Did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?’
    Starmer:
    ‘Yes, it did’
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,436
    Eabhal said:

    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Other papers are available. The question here is whether the damage from Brexit was 2%, 8% or something in between. Even the most optimistic studies don’t claim there wasn’t (and isn’t) any damage to the economy.

    Whether that damage was worth it is up to the reader.
    Mmm. Somewhere in about 2019 I came to the view that Brexit was likely to make us a bit worse off, but that it would not be by so much or be so obviously linked as to really cause anybody to change their mind on the fundamental question. Certainly there have been plenty of subsequent events to muddy the waters, and the economic damage level is very arguable. Opinion polls suggest I wasn't entirely right on the "nobody will change their mind" part, but on the other hand I suspect most of those who have moved to the other side of the polling question aren't motivated by looking at economic analysis of lost growth...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,691

    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Rightly so. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Won't stop Remainers/Rejoiners trotting it out, unquestioned mind.
    Side of a bus, MM.

    As we discussed in some detail under Fishing's last (very good) header, debunking a study doesn't disprove the negative effects of Brexit; it just debunks the study. Can you present any study demonstrating the opposite ?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    edited April 20
    Morning all
    Apologies if already posted but More in Common have MRPs for Holyrood and the Senedd out on their website.
    https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/

    Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,365
    algarkirk said:

    Quick review of Alexander's appearance on R4 Today at 8.10; this is where he is unable to defend the PM:

    1) Unable to defend PeterM being appointed and in place before vetting, in the circumstances where it was known that PeterM was known to have significant links and form

    2) Entirely unable to account for how people, especially Robbins, are sacked for an alleged error of judgment and at the same time the PM is agreed by Alexander and the PM himself to have made a major error in appointing PeterM, against much senior advice, but unlike others he is staying on and blaming everyone else.

    3) Unable to deal with the 'Casablanca' point. Everyone, including the PM, knows the PM was not shocked, angry or surprised at finding out that PeterM had security vetting problems. He was angry that it came out inconveniently due to parliament doing its job for the public.

    Alexander is usually good, today he was terrible because it was so obvious he was being told to make bricks without straw. Worth a listen.

    Starmer was rightly angry about the Epstein files revelation that Mandelson had been leaking government secrets. However, this was not (so far as we know) uncovered by UKSV. An investigation into that chocolate fireguard might be left for later, or more likely for never.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,913

    algarkirk said:

    Quick review of Alexander's appearance on R4 Today at 8.10; this is where he is unable to defend the PM:

    1) Unable to defend PeterM being appointed and in place before vetting, in the circumstances where it was known that PeterM was known to have significant links and form

    2) Entirely unable to account for how people, especially Robbins, are sacked for an alleged error of judgment and at the same time the PM is agreed by Alexander and the PM himself to have made a major error in appointing PeterM, against much senior advice, but unlike others he is staying on and blaming everyone else.

    3) Unable to deal with the 'Casablanca' point. Everyone, including the PM, knows the PM was not shocked, angry or surprised at finding out that PeterM had security vetting problems. He was angry that it came out inconveniently due to parliament doing its job for the public.

    Alexander is usually good, today he was terrible because it was so obvious he was being told to make bricks without straw. Worth a listen.

    Starmer was rightly angry about the Epstein files revelation that Mandelson had been leaking government secrets. However, this was not (so far as we know) uncovered by UKSV. An investigation into that chocolate fireguard might be left for later, or more likely for never.
    In an alternative universe where our PM actually wanted to know he might have asked how this wasn't picked up by the DV and what was. But we don't live there.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    There’s always a “Yes, Prime Minister” sketch for every political scandal.

    https://x.com/jamesmelville/status/2046106915218796972
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,446
    Thank you for the header, @Fishing , very interesting.
  • Burnham would be a much better communicator.

    But beyond that, I’m struggling to see how that will take him more than a few weeks.

    He will almost certainly give Labour a good bounce though. Any chance he does a Carney and immediately calls an election?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,913

    DavidL said:

    It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.

    The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.

    This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.

    When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
    Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
  • Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.

    But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?

    Perhaps.

    If there is genuinely no better alternative then replacing Starmer doesn't make sense.
    Starmer is a weasel, employing weasally language to evade reponsibility for Mandelson's appointment.

    Beware weasels. If Labour hasn't got anybody better to put forward as PM than a weasel, it should fold up its tent and depart.
    I've been wondering this morning how Starmer is any different to Boris.

    Boris was obviously chaotic - it was his personality - but where is the evidence that Starmer isn't just as chaotic, but with the chaos hidden behind a grey screen? He certainly doesn't seem to have a better relationship with the truth.
    Johnson lied as easily as he breathed. He lied about completely trivial things.

    To compare the two is completely insane.

    But Johnson certainly legitimised a lot of what has come since.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,365
    OT betting news:-

    William Hill's owner Evoke has confirmed it is in talks with Greek lottery and gambling operator Bally's Intralot over a potential £225 million takeover.

    Evoke said on Monday morning that the offer was at a price of 50 pence per share and expected to comprise an all-share combination with a partial cash alternative.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/william-hill-owner-evoke-confirms-talks-with-ballys-intralot-over-225-million-takeover-akjUd5n3kcY6/

    Closing 200 betting shops has already been announced.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,915
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.

    The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.

    This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.

    When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
    Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
    I know this will come as something of a shock to you but the opposite also applies, to wit there are those that believe that anything born of Scotland must be shite and all that is good north of Gretna is provided by the generoisty of Westminster and the English.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,553
    Nigelb said:

    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Rightly so. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Won't stop Remainers/Rejoiners trotting it out, unquestioned mind.
    Side of a bus, MM.

    As we discussed in some detail under Fishing's last (very good) header, debunking a study doesn't disprove the negative effects of Brexit; it just debunks the study. Can you present any study demonstrating the opposite ?
    The evidence is that economic performance was both mediocre and not out of line with peer European nations.

    So we need a study that *identifies* effects from Brexit.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,186
    Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,883
    https://x.com/bethrigby/status/2046127275997868261

    Tom Fletcher, UN Humanitarian Chief & friend of Olly Robbins, tells @BBCr4today he’s spoken to Robbins. Describes him a man with of integrity with ‘public service stitched into his DNA’

    ‘He’s pretty tough character but he’s heartbroken’ > As someone plugged into civil service said to me y’day over the mood in civil service: “Everyone from the top tier to the juniors are in despair”
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,472
    Election logistics news:

    Nine of the thirty wards in Bradford won't be counted until the Saturday.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,411

    Nigelb said:

    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Rightly so. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Won't stop Remainers/Rejoiners trotting it out, unquestioned mind.
    Side of a bus, MM.

    As we discussed in some detail under Fishing's last (very good) header, debunking a study doesn't disprove the negative effects of Brexit; it just debunks the study. Can you present any study demonstrating the opposite ?
    The evidence is that economic performance was both mediocre and not out of line with peer European nations.

    So we need a study that *identifies* effects from Brexit.
    Impossibly meshed in with Brexit/Covid?Ukraine/Cost of Living Crisis all having real and inter-related impacts.

    The best we will be able to say about the impact of Brexit is "we don't know". But 8% - or anything close - looks difficult to stand up.
  • https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/20/ed-miliband-to-double-down-on-net-zero-with-measures-to-combat-iran-energy-shock

    These will include speeding up the warm homes plan to encourage the rapid take-up of solar panels and electric vehicles; expanding the use of solar on public land; and delinking gas and electricity prices, to cut consumers’ bills.

    An excellent idea for once. But we still need to open up North Sea drilling as well.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,961
    edited April 20

    Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'

    That's the issue.. starmer is useless and untruthful. .. but looking at the alternatives and one shudders.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689

    Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'

    It’s a bit bleak.

    John Healey is probably the best of a bad bunch at the moment, Burnham would obviously have been a contender but he’s still stuck in Manchester.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    edited April 20

    Burnham would be a much better communicator.

    But beyond that, I’m struggling to see how that will take him more than a few weeks.

    He will almost certainly give Labour a good bounce though. Any chance he does a Carney and immediately calls an election?

    Interesting as to when he'd pull the trigger if he got in. For him to be PM i suppose SKS has to survive this week and May and Burnham arrive in some fashion in parliament the back end of this year maybe? SKS maybe goes on his own terms in 2027 as he doesnt think he can turn it round/had enough - after the locals? Burnham wins the leadership and is in by Summer. He will want a few months of charming the electorate so earliest if he gets a bounce for a GE perhaps Oct 27? If not we are into the mayoralties incl London May 28 and we are near enough 4 years in and on GE trigger watch anyway.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,553

    Nigelb said:

    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Rightly so. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Won't stop Remainers/Rejoiners trotting it out, unquestioned mind.
    Side of a bus, MM.

    As we discussed in some detail under Fishing's last (very good) header, debunking a study doesn't disprove the negative effects of Brexit; it just debunks the study. Can you present any study demonstrating the opposite ?
    The evidence is that economic performance was both mediocre and not out of line with peer European nations.

    So we need a study that *identifies* effects from Brexit.
    Impossibly meshed in with Brexit/Covid?Ukraine/Cost of Living Crisis all having real and inter-related impacts.

    The best we will be able to say about the impact of Brexit is "we don't know". But 8% - or anything close - looks difficult to stand up.
    You would have to work from the bottom up - some industries have reported collapses in business due to import/export problems.
  • Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'

    That's the issue.. starmer is useless and untruthful. .. but looking at the alternatives and one shudders.
    There is only Burnham - but he's not in Parliament.

    As the briefing continues be anonymous only - much to the despair of much of the media - Sir Keir is safe. When people "come over the top" things will change.

    He sees out 2026.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,365

    Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'

    It is a bit bleak. Burnham wants the job but is not an MP. Miliband does not want the job. Rayner is said to have doubts. Still, someone will turn up.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689

    Election logistics news:

    Nine of the thirty wards in Bradford won't be counted until the Saturday.

    That sounds almost American, in trying to give the wrong impression about ballot integrity.

    What’s their excuse for reasoning behind taking so long?
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268

    Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'

    That's the issue.. starmer is useless and untruthful. .. but looking at the alternatives and one shudders.
    Jenrick could always cross the floor if he is keen enough.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,061
    edited April 20
    algarkirk said:

    nico67 said:

    Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?

    Interesting question, but this has got legal and legalistic. The question needs to be asked and analysed about exact and specific words and occasions in the HoC, where in general formulaic expressions were used. There is a lot of Hansard to trawl

    This one from 4th Feb is interesting:

    Badenoch:
    ‘Did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?’
    Starmer:
    ‘Yes, it did’
    I think there has been confusion between the two different vetting enquiries on Mandelson.

    The first was by the Propriety and Ethics Team (PET) based in the Cabinet Office. This team conducted a due diligence check before his appointment was publicly announced in December 2024. I think this is the report that Starmer is referring to which mentioned his ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

    The second was by the United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) agency, also situated within the Cabinet Office, but different from the PET. This was an intensive, independent investigation into his personal life, finances, and associations which took much longer and recommended that he be denied security clearance, and was over ridden by Robbins.

    I don't think Starmer (or Jones) was aware of the details of these two processes including the right of the FO to over ride the conclusions of the UKSV.

    They are both official security vetting processes.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,325

    Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'

    It is a bit bleak. Burnham wants the job but is not an MP. Miliband does not want the job. Rayner is said to have doubts. Still, someone will turn up.
    Al Carns , why not ?

    I don’t think you need lots of experience of government given we’ve had that in recent years and it hasn’t counted for much .
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287
    edited April 20
    DavidL said:

    It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.

    The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.

    This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.

    How is it implausible?

    This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.

    Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689

    Nigelb said:

    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Rightly so. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Won't stop Remainers/Rejoiners trotting it out, unquestioned mind.
    Side of a bus, MM.

    As we discussed in some detail under Fishing's last (very good) header, debunking a study doesn't disprove the negative effects of Brexit; it just debunks the study. Can you present any study demonstrating the opposite ?
    The evidence is that economic performance was both mediocre and not out of line with peer European nations.

    So we need a study that *identifies* effects from Brexit.
    Of which there will be both positives and negatives.

    There’s some import/export friction and paperwork at the border, but also some freedom from not being involved in new EU regulations, specifically those around emerging technology.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,691
    Sandpit said:

    Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'

    It’s a bit bleak.

    John Healey is probably the best of a bad bunch at the moment, Burnham would obviously have been a contender but he’s still stuck in Manchester.
    I see no convincing evidence of Healey being up to the job.
    Or even his current one.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,913

    Nigelb said:

    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Rightly so. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Won't stop Remainers/Rejoiners trotting it out, unquestioned mind.
    Side of a bus, MM.

    As we discussed in some detail under Fishing's last (very good) header, debunking a study doesn't disprove the negative effects of Brexit; it just debunks the study. Can you present any study demonstrating the opposite ?
    The evidence is that economic performance was both mediocre and not out of line with peer European nations.

    So we need a study that *identifies* effects from Brexit.
    For the reasons discussed the last time this is simply not possible. The effects of Brexit are small and subtle. A good case can be made, for example, that the growth of some small businesses was inhibited because exports became more complicated. Had we remained in the SM it is possible some of these businesses might have grown (or been wiped out by an EU competitor, of course). A different case could be made that not adapting more EU regulation wholesale made us more attractive to foreign investors in IT in particular.

    But these effects will be tiny and completely lost in the noise of poor policy making, adverse economic shocks such as Covid, the Ukraine and now Iran and our somewhat patchy responses to these challenges. We need to move on and focus on better performance in the future based on policies designed to achieve growth and productivity. No more excuses.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    Battlebus said:

    Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'

    That's the issue.. starmer is useless and untruthful. .. but looking at the alternatives and one shudders.
    Jenrick could always cross the floor if he is keen enough.
    Big Lee Anderson is overdue a party move. Maybe he misses being a red
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,365
    Counter-terror police probe if Iran paying 'thugs for hire' to carry out arson attacks in London
    Counter-terror officers investigating if Iranian proxies are behind attacks on Jewish community in the capital
    ...
    ...
    The Met said the incidents were “similar in nature” and said Iranian proxy group Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, have claimed responsibility for most of the attacks online.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-arson-attacks-jewish-community-iran-proxy-met-police-b1279263.html
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,633
    edited April 20
    It's to Starmer's advantage that the Mandelson/vetting saga is terribly complex; even this esteemed board is struggling to separate fact from fiction, so I suspect the general public is flummoxed. Regardless, the overall impression of deceit will add to Starmer's unpopularity - but this is already so high that there's not much further to go.

    My view is that he'll ride this out, but may well choose to go before the GE. But when he does go, he'll have a clear view of who he wants his successor to be, and will make plans to get his way. So, if he thinks Burnham is Labour's best chance at the GE, he can make this happen. If he doesn't, he'll try to pave the way for his chosen successor. Darren Jones, maybe? I'm pretty confident that he won't want Rayner succeeding him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,910
    edited April 20
    Yes, even if we had had increased migration from the EEA still and higher numbers of workers employed without Brexit that would still have added yet further pressures on housing and services.

    UK unemployment today is in fact little different to 2016, 5.2% to 4.9% then and most of the slightly higher rate now can be attributed to the tax rises and costs and burdens imposed on business by this Labour government not Brexit. Indeed when Rishi left office in 2024, 4 years since Brexit, unemployment at 4.4% was actually lower than in 2016. Had we had a No Deal Brexit then that may have had a more damaging effect on the economy but we didn't and we left in early 2020 with a trade deal with the EU
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,883
    https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/2046113660154654988

    Ridge "Why did the govt announce that Mandelson had got the job before doing the vetting"

    Alexander "The process.. was one we inherited.. appts could be made ahead of developed vetting.."

    Ridge "Could feels an important word.. why did you announce the appt before the vetting?"
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376

    https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/2046113660154654988

    Ridge "Why did the govt announce that Mandelson had got the job before doing the vetting"

    Alexander "The process.. was one we inherited.. appts could be made ahead of developed vetting.."

    Ridge "Could feels an important word.. why did you announce the appt before the vetting?"

    I knew it was the Tories fault. That awful inheritance of doom Labour were cursed with
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,203
    Battlebus said:

    Nigelb said:

    On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week.
    For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.

    Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.

    But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.

    1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.

    2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.

    Different mechanisms. Same disease. Both working.

    <13% of patients survive 5 years. That number is about to change.</i>
    https://x.com/BoWang87/status/2046080745819824614

    *Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.

    Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
    Despite how we look, out genetic make-up as a whole is pretty similar. The issues with cancers is that while for some types, classic chemotherapy can be curative (e.g. I was cured from APL, a sub-type of leukeamia with a two intercalators, testicular cancers are uniquely suceptible to platinum drugs), others will find resistance pathways (think those Borg energy shields adapting in Star Trek.

    The latest research is usually focussed on specific mutations within a cancer cell line. KRAS mutations affect signalling in tumours - shutting it down will stop the pro-cancer signalling.

    And finding ways to get the immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells is probably the best treatment of all. Its hard to do as cancer cells derive from your own cells, but if you can do it...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,913
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.

    The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.

    This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.

    How is it implausible?

    This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.

    Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
    This is from the House of Commons library

    "The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.

    Services have performed better
    UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level."
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/

    In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?

    Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,203

    geoffw said:

    Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering

    Rightly so. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Won't stop Remainers/Rejoiners trotting it out, unquestioned mind.
    Its a Red Bus for remainers.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,690

    Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'

    Nature abhors a vacuum so someone will step up.

    After all, there was a time when no one was deemed capable of replacing Thatcher or Blair or even Cameron, let alone Johnson. Starmer would be the first Labour PM to be forced out - we can probably argue Wilson and Blair more or less went on their terms and it was certainly more voluntary than the public defenestrations of Thatcher, May, Johnson and Truss to name but four.

    The other side of is who would want to be Prime Minister? I suspect there are no shortage of applicants - after all, 360 people are trying to be Newham Councillors which is a world removed.

    Trying to perpetuate the sense of "crisis" is what news organisations like Sky (who have to regurgitate this nonsense every hour) and those not well disposed to the current incumbent PM or party of Government will attempt for the next 48-72 hours but absent a "smoking gun", it's hard to see how Starmer doesn't survive unless he chooses to step down and politicians rarely walk away from power - real or imagined.

    The only other option would be some form of mutiny within Cabinet what is what usually does for failed Conservative Prime Ministers but untiland unless we see a significant resignation, it all looks reasonable for Starmer.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,910
    edited April 20

    Morning all
    Apologies if already posted but More in Common have MRPs for Holyrood and the Senedd out on their website.
    https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/

    Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week

    Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through

    https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/more-in-common-s-2026-holyrood-mrp/

    In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through

    https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/more-in-common-s-2026-senedd-mrp/
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,238
    Since UK unemployment was already low in 2016, at 4.9%, and actually fell significantly after the referendum, to 3.8% in 2019, though it has since risen back to around its original level, it does not seem plausible that a significant amount of the extra employment would come from reducing unemployment.
    The loss of trade access to the EU didn't happen until 2020, so the timing of these changes to unemployment is consistent with a loss of employment due to businesses laying off staff after they lose business selling to the EU.

    I think there's at least a decent case that this ~1pp increase in the unemployment rate is attributable to Brexit. It doesn't account for all of the extra employment the report said there would be, but I think there's an effect there.

    I also think that, if the economy had done better, particularly in terms of productivity, then this would have supported higher wages, and so you'd expect this to increase the incentives for people to participate in the labour market, and thereby increase employment that way.

    It's an optimistic scenario, but I think it means that a Brexit hit of somewhere between 0 and 8% is plausible.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,238

    It's to Starmer's advantage that the Mandelson/vetting saga is terribly complex; even this esteemed board is struggling to separate fact from fiction, so I suspect the general public is flummoxed. Regardless, the overall impression of deceit will add to Starmer's unpopularity - but this is already so high that there's not much further to go.

    My view is that he'll ride this out, but may well choose to go before the GE. But when he does go, he'll have a clear view of who he wants his successor to be, and will make plans to get his way. So, if he thinks Burnham is Labour's best chance at the GE, he can make this happen. If he doesn't, he'll try to pave the way for his chosen successor. Darren Jones, maybe? I'm pretty confident that he won't want Rayner succeeding him.

    The complexity of the process argument is why I've said the opposition should focus on the decision to appoint Mandelson itself. I think that's where the real scandal is, that Starmer was part of a web of mutual obligation that involved Mandelson, and the rich guy he accepted freebies from, and so he made a decision on who to appoint as US ambassador for reasons of a personal relationship, rather than what was in the best interests of Britain.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    Have to wonder if at some point cabinet ministers are no longer prepared to torch whats left of their credibility dancing on this iffy pinhead. Douglas Alexander looked an utter berk on GMB, and looked like he knew it was all utterly indefensible.
    Liz Kendall, much as i dislike her, was better yesterday because shes good at making everything she says seem incredibly, almost pantomimely, earnest.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,910

    One and a half million more people in the country if we'd voted Remain?

    A jolly good thing we left then.

    With the Bozo wave, if anything, net migration may have been lower if we'd not left the EU.

    Though net migration now falling due to the tighter visa wage controls Sunak and Cleverly brought in
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,203
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.

    The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.

    This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.

    When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
    Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
    I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,910

    Burnham would be a much better communicator.

    But beyond that, I’m struggling to see how that will take him more than a few weeks.

    He will almost certainly give Labour a good bounce though. Any chance he does a Carney and immediately calls an election?

    Burnham isn't even an MP yet so ineligable to be Labour leader let alone PM
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,601
    Massive earthquake off Japan.
    Tsunami warning out.
    That'd be all we need
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922

    Two attempts to export food samples to the EU have both failed. Next stage? Human mule...

    Didn’t I suggest that in the first place
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,203

    Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.

    But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?

    Perhaps.

    If there is genuinely no better alternative then replacing Starmer doesn't make sense.
    Starmer is a weasel, employing weasally language to evade reponsibility for Mandelson's appointment.

    Beware weasels. If Labour hasn't got anybody better to put forward as PM than a weasel, it should fold up its tent and depart.
    I've been wondering this morning how Starmer is any different to Boris.

    Boris was obviously chaotic - it was his personality - but where is the evidence that Starmer isn't just as chaotic, but with the chaos hidden behind a grey screen? He certainly doesn't seem to have a better relationship with the truth.
    Johnson lied as easily as he breathed. He lied about completely trivial things.

    To compare the two is completely insane.

    But Johnson certainly legitimised a lot of what has come since.
    I'd argue Blair started the process (and that was driven in part by Alistair Campbell and our good old friend Peter Mandelson). See Peter Oborne's "The Rise of Political Lying". The case is made that politicians have always tried to hide the truth, or evade, not answer (see Paxman vs Howard) but under Blair straight out lies came into it.

    Personally I think Starmer is more of a through back to previous times. Unlike Johnson he doesn't tell obvious lies, but he tries his lawyerly wiles to cover half-truths and deception.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,433
    Barnesian said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico67 said:

    Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?

    Interesting question, but this has got legal and legalistic. The question needs to be asked and analysed about exact and specific words and occasions in the HoC, where in general formulaic expressions were used. There is a lot of Hansard to trawl

    This one from 4th Feb is interesting:

    Badenoch:
    ‘Did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?’
    Starmer:
    ‘Yes, it did’
    I think there has been confusion between the two different vetting enquiries on Mandelson.

    The first was by the Propriety and Ethics Team (PET) based in the Cabinet Office. This team conducted a due diligence check before his appointment was publicly announced in December 2024. I think this is the report that Starmer is referring to which mentioned his ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

    The second was by the United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) agency, also situated within the Cabinet Office, but different from the PET. This was an intensive, independent investigation into his personal life, finances, and associations which took much longer and recommended that he be denied security clearance, and was over ridden by Robbins.

    I don't think Starmer (or Jones) was aware of the details of these two processes including the right of the FO to over ride the conclusions of the UKSV.

    They are both official security vetting processes.
    Doesn't it make things worse for the PM if he certainly knew the continuing Epstein stuff before appointment. One can understand (though not concur with) the hesitations arising after the appointment, but not before.

    The PM/government didn't exactly go out of its way to clear up all the confusions which may have arisen from Barnesian's interesting point.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,913

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.

    The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.

    This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.

    When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
    Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
    I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
    But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,342
    HYUFD said:

    Morning all
    Apologies if already posted but More in Common have MRPs for Holyrood and the Senedd out on their website.
    https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/

    Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week

    Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through

    https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/more-in-common-s-2026-holyrood-mrp/

    In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through

    https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/more-in-common-s-2026-senedd-mrp/
    It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.

    We now have a 3 way tussle:
    Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats
    Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote
    Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy

    If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.

    What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,633

    It's to Starmer's advantage that the Mandelson/vetting saga is terribly complex; even this esteemed board is struggling to separate fact from fiction, so I suspect the general public is flummoxed. Regardless, the overall impression of deceit will add to Starmer's unpopularity - but this is already so high that there's not much further to go.

    My view is that he'll ride this out, but may well choose to go before the GE. But when he does go, he'll have a clear view of who he wants his successor to be, and will make plans to get his way. So, if he thinks Burnham is Labour's best chance at the GE, he can make this happen. If he doesn't, he'll try to pave the way for his chosen successor. Darren Jones, maybe? I'm pretty confident that he won't want Rayner succeeding him.

    The complexity of the process argument is why I've said the opposition should focus on the decision to appoint Mandelson itself. I think that's where the real scandal is, that Starmer was part of a web of mutual obligation that involved Mandelson, and the rich guy he accepted freebies from, and so he made a decision on who to appoint as US ambassador for reasons of a personal relationship, rather than what was in the best interests of Britain.
    Agree with most, but not all, of that. I think at the time Starmer thought, wrongly, that Mandelson's appointment was in the best interests of Britain. But in September he sacked him, and in January he held his hands up and admitted he'd made a bad mistake. So, it was a gross misjudgement to appoint Mandelson. I'm not sure what else Starmer can say on it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,433
    On a simple timing matter, unless the PM acts for himself earlier I think it is more or less fixed that we won't know how this turns out until after 7th May. If there is to be a defenestration, a temporary PM and the subsequent cage fight I think Labour will want a run at it clear of impending elections.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,883
    https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2046150716058701850

    I wrote to the PM reminding him of his obligations under the Ministerial Code.

    He’s at best been recklessly negligent, and at worst completely dishonest. It's time for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    Parliament and the British people deserve nothing less.
This discussion has been closed.