It's fascinating how the comments of the Centrist Dorks almost never contain data. Just effete opinions like
"Correlation causation conflation.
(like that - catchy)"
It's almost as if they don't have any evidence, just poignant yearning
"Cutting off our closest trading partner"
"Straight bananas har har har"
Fact free emotive drivel from the more intelligent and educated side of the argument.
I don't wish to be mean or coarse, that's not my style, but the PB Centrist Dads are stupid twats
You're posting that in solidarity with someone who doesn't understand key stage 3 level maths, the irony is appreciated.
Well Leon's logic abilities are also very limited so it isn't a surprise. It is so superficial. The other day he was having an economics argument with hyufd. Couldn't stop laughing it was so funny.
I remember when you were so amused by an argument about parking in France you shared it with your wife, and she was also "doubled over" in laughter, and then you went to a party in Newent and told all your "friends", and they were in "stitches"., Then you set up a website called "Leon's French Parking Problems" and it got five million fucking visitors and won a Pulitzer and the Nobel and then you held a global summit as you tattooed my face on your ridiculous caravanning face you stupid dismal ridiculous embarassing flailling dribbling sad testicle-shrinkingly-cringeworthy old TWAT
Well remembered but you didn't get the facts quite right.
I was actually in Cambridge in November 2024 and had been invited to have dinner at the top table at Peterhouse College. It wasn't just myself and my wife but a large group of us looking at your posts and laughing ourselves silly as you got caught out lying spectacularly. You can refresh your memory by looking back at the post.
The fact that you remember that post I think says it all. I remember it because it was my 70th birthday. What is your reason for remembering something that happened a year and half ago and was so insignificant.
Rattled a bit by it were we? Having some doubts over our intellectual abilities are we? Have we been humiliated a few times tonight by a few here that are somewhat brighter than you like @Benpointer?
You got lucky. Peterhouse is Tory central, such as it is in Cambridge.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
Well go and live there. Your wider point is irrelevant to our political choices.
One of the silliest bits of the Brexit debate was this idea that if we adopt policies similar to place X then we become like place X.
The general premise is not inherently silly even if it is typically going to be a bit more complex than that - we should be looking at the policies of other places and if they work and/or we like them we should consider copying them where we can. It is just we're not always going to be able to do so because the wider context of us or them - wealth, resources, laws, etc - may not respond as identically to an attempt to replicate.
One of our problems might be our very narrow focus, as typified in debates on the NHS, which so often seem to come down to doing what we do now or being accused of trying to be the USA. People do bring up that there are alternative options, but the public perception appears to be locked on only those two.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Streeting has resigned from the cabinet and is calling for Starmer to be replaced. Why on earth shouldn't he set out alternative policy ideas ? It is - yet again - the height of entitled arrogance for the Burnham camp to expect everyone just to roll over for him.
A pathetic response to Streeting.
It's extremely silly, but these kind of spats are what you get when internal faultlines get exposed.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
You're making the assumption that you'd be in the 25% that can read properly. Even then, it shows a rather alarming apathy to those who aren't so lucky.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
Well go and live there. Your wider point is irrelevant to our political choices.
One of the silliest bits of the Brexit debate was this idea that if we adopt policies similar to place X then we become like place X.
Let’s have an Australian-style points system. Then we’ll all live in eternal sunshine and spend our time surfing and having barbies. Let’s have a Norway-style deal and we’ll be an ultra-rich petrostate with a sovereign wealth fund.
A lot of the “we should trade more with places like New Zealand” was really people just envious of the All Blacks.
In the last instance, I think it was justifiable nostalgia at the very strong relationships we had there. New Zealand became notably poorer when we joined the EEC and our food imports radically changed. I'm in favour of some of those relationships being rekindled if it's commercially beneficial to both parties. I couldn't give a monkeys about the rugby.
Regarding your wider point, to paraphrase - "what's wrong with being poor?" - in the short term what's wrong with it is that living standards fall, and in the longer term, if imbalances in wealth creation persist, the wealthy countries can and will control the poor.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
Well go and live there. Your wider point is irrelevant to our political choices.
One of the silliest bits of the Brexit debate was this idea that if we adopt policies similar to place X then we become like place X.
The general premise is not inherently silly even if it is typically going to be a bit more complex than that - we should be looking at the policies of other places and if they work and/or we like them we should consider copying them where we can. It is just we're not always going to be able to do so because the wider context of us or them - wealth, resources, laws, etc - may not respond as identically to an attempt to replicate.
One of our problems might be our very narrow focus, as typified in debates on the NHS, which so often seem to come down to doing what we do now or being accused of trying to be the USA. People do bring up that there are alternative options, but the public perception appears to be locked on only those two.
That’s exactly the point. Nobody takes policies on face value, they always have to imagine they make a country become somewhere else.
Hence why the “Turkey option” in the Brexit debates was sunk before it started, as was a “Ukraine-style association agreement”.
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
What if he loses and his camp blame it on Streeting's intervention?
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
Well go and live there. Your wider point is irrelevant to our political choices.
One of the silliest bits of the Brexit debate was this idea that if we adopt policies similar to place X then we become like place X.
Let’s have an Australian-style points system. Then we’ll all live in eternal sunshine and spend our time surfing and having barbies. Let’s have a Norway-style deal and we’ll be an ultra-rich petrostate with a sovereign wealth fund.
A lot of the “we should trade more with places like New Zealand” was really people just envious of the All Blacks.
In the last instance, I think it was justifiable nostalgia at the very strong relationships we had there. New Zealand became notably poorer when we joined the EEC and our food imports radically changed. I'm in favour of some of those relationships being rekindled if it's commercially beneficial to both parties. I couldn't give a monkeys about the rugby.
Regarding your wider point, to paraphrase - "what's wrong with being poor?" - in the short term what's wrong with it is that living standards fall, and in the longer term, if imbalances in wealth creation persist, the wealthy countries can and will control the poor.
Where in any of my posts is there anything remotely like “what’s wrong with being poor”?
I think you’re internalising those American self-chats they like to have.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
Well go and live there. Your wider point is irrelevant to our political choices.
One of the silliest bits of the Brexit debate was this idea that if we adopt policies similar to place X then we become like place X.
Let’s have an Australian-style points system. Then we’ll all live in eternal sunshine and spend our time surfing and having barbies. Let’s have a Norway-style deal and we’ll be an ultra-rich petrostate with a sovereign wealth fund.
A lot of the “we should trade more with places like New Zealand” was really people just envious of the All Blacks.
In the last instance, I think it was justifiable nostalgia at the very strong relationships we had there. New Zealand became notably poorer when we joined the EEC and our food imports radically changed. I'm in favour of some of those relationships being rekindled if it's commercially beneficial to both parties. I couldn't give a monkeys about the rugby.
Regarding your wider point, to paraphrase - "what's wrong with being poor?" - in the short term what's wrong with it is that living standards fall, and in the longer term, if imbalances in wealth creation persist, the wealthy countries can and will control the poor.
Where in any of my posts is there anything remotely like “what’s wrong with being poor”?
I think you’re internalising those American self-chats they like to have.
I was paraphrasing. Would "what's all the fuss about being poor?" be more accurate? As I understand it, your argument is yes Europe is a bit poorer than the US, but if the US wasn't making it into a pissing contest, everybody would be quite happy with their lot. If that's not your argument, clearly I haven't got it.
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
Kind of got the feeling most members want a coronation. I'd rather avoid a pointless two month contest of bickering and naval gazing when Burnham is going to win anyway. Get him in before the Summer Recess and have him think about what to do in prep for the Autumn Budget during it.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
You're making the assumption that you'd be in the 25% that can read properly. Even then, it shows a rather alarming apathy to those who aren't so lucky.
New Orleans is in Louisiana. Which is why it's infested with Frenchmen who play blues on the accordion.
The literacy rate for 10 year olds is slightly higher in Louisiana.
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
A couple of points that I hope aren't controversial:
The American model is more efficient at generating GDP.
The "European" (whether that's UK or continental) range of models is more efficient at turning less GDP into more human thriving.
Both bits matter, and I'm pretty sure that, once a country is rich enough, the second one matters more.
How does the American model benefit us, as an independent country ?
We're never going to be part of the US; we're not big enough to copy them. We're certainly a good place, with our open markets, for them to asset strip and poach talent. But much more than that ?
How about the Taiwanese model with government spending of around 18% of GDP?
The Taiwanese model was built on luck, an economically enlightened government which subsidised their nascent chip industry, and being a very cheap place (less than a fifth of the US per capita GDP) when they started.
Coping that is also not possible, unless you think we can impose something like an 80% cut in standard of living to make us a more attractive location for manufacturing ?
You do touch on something important, though, which is the growing importance of manufacturing to remain an advanced economy.
40 years of Martial Law to create the necessary conditions might meet some opposition, too.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
Well go and live there. Your wider point is irrelevant to our political choices.
One of the silliest bits of the Brexit debate was this idea that if we adopt policies similar to place X then we become like place X.
Let’s have an Australian-style points system. Then we’ll all live in eternal sunshine and spend our time surfing and having barbies. Let’s have a Norway-style deal and we’ll be an ultra-rich petrostate with a sovereign wealth fund.
A lot of the “we should trade more with places like New Zealand” was really people just envious of the All Blacks.
In the last instance, I think it was justifiable nostalgia at the very strong relationships we had there. New Zealand became notably poorer when we joined the EEC and our food imports radically changed. I'm in favour of some of those relationships being rekindled if it's commercially beneficial to both parties. I couldn't give a monkeys about the rugby.
Regarding your wider point, to paraphrase - "what's wrong with being poor?" - in the short term what's wrong with it is that living standards fall, and in the longer term, if imbalances in wealth creation persist, the wealthy countries can and will control the poor.
Where in any of my posts is there anything remotely like “what’s wrong with being poor”?
I think you’re internalising those American self-chats they like to have.
I was paraphrasing. Would "what's all the fuss about being poor?" be more accurate? As I understand it, your argument is yes Europe is a bit poorer than the US, but if the US wasn't making it into a pissing contest, everybody would be quite happy with their lot. If that's not your argument, clearly I haven't got it.
No, that’s not my argument at all.
I am simply saying, there is an infuriating lack of any sort of prescription from this debate. What’s the so-what? Is it that Europe should “be more American”? Is it that we should bow before their cultural superiority? It’s certainly not that we should get more competitive with them and undercut their industries.
They’re not doing this whole thing because they want us to change policy or do anything about it. They’re doing it because it makes them feel good, and superior.
We all know the US is more economically dynamic than the European average. It’s been the case for as long as I remember. In the 1950s the gap was so big we were on rations and averaging several inches shorter than them. But it’s only recently that they’ve become quite so complacently smug about the whole thing.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
Some good points but Singapore has the best educational outcomes in the world
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
I doubt he is. He, and supporters, might claim he has, or that now he is simply the right man for the right moment.
But whether he actually is either of those things is secondary to whether the selectorate believe he is (or might be), and which candidate will inspire them, justifiably or not.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
75% of 10 years olds cannot read?! If that is the case surely that is recipe for societal collapse in that state?
Or would be if ChatGPT/Claude was not going to be doing everything for us soon.
It's fascinating how the comments of the Centrist Dorks almost never contain data. Just effete opinions like
"Correlation causation conflation.
(like that - catchy)"
It's almost as if they don't have any evidence, just poignant yearning
"Cutting off our closest trading partner"
"Straight bananas har har har"
Fact free emotive drivel from the more intelligent and educated side of the argument.
I don't wish to be mean or coarse, that's not my style, but the PB Centrist Dads are stupid twats
But what's your opinion of Centrist Non-Dads?
Given the term "Centrist Dad" was coined by someone in the Corbyn camp to disparage people who were insufficiently Corbynista, its use as a right wing insult seems particularly dumb - says more about the people making the insult than the people they target etc etc.
Leaving aside that being a dad is a great thing and being a reasonable dad even better. If we are male we should all want to be centrist dads. So what's the insult again?
It's fascinating how the comments of the Centrist Dorks almost never contain data. Just effete opinions like
"Correlation causation conflation.
(like that - catchy)"
It's almost as if they don't have any evidence, just poignant yearning
"Cutting off our closest trading partner"
"Straight bananas har har har"
Fact free emotive drivel from the more intelligent and educated side of the argument.
I don't wish to be mean or coarse, that's not my style, but the PB Centrist Dads are stupid twats
But what's your opinion of Centrist Non-Dads?
Given the term "Centrist Dad" was coined by someone in the Corbyn camp to disparage people who were insufficiently Corbynista, its use as a right wing insult seems particularly dumb - says more about the people making the insult than the people they target etc etc.
Leaving aside that being a dad is a great thing and being a reasonable dad even better. If we are male we should all want to be centrist dads. So what's the insult again?
I would imagine Centrist in this context is usually code for someone with fashionable but midwit opinions, or else someone indecisive and bland unwilling to look at solutions that might actually work for fear of engaging with an 'extreme' opinion, or with an instinctual aversion to change.
The right answer is usually in the middle of two extremes, but sometimes it can be closer to one end than the other.
But then I say that as a self proclaimed Centrist Non-dad.
As I like to say, everything in moderation (including moderation).
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
You're making the assumption that you'd be in the 25% that can read properly. Even then, it shows a rather alarming apathy to those who aren't so lucky.
It's be the poorer 75% with his arse hanging out of his jeans, searching around for scraps out of his head on fentanyl ... deliriously happy for a last few weeks on earth
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
I think Burnham can make a case here. He last stood for leadership in 2015 (I think). Since then he's been Mayor of Manchester, which is very much his own show, and is widely regarded as being a success, in contrast to Starmer. Burnham wouldn't be in the running for PM if Starmer hadn't screwed up, but he has of course, so Burnham is now in pole position.
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
I think Burnham can make a case here. He last stood for leadership in 2015 (I think). Since then he's been Mayor of Manchester, which is very much his own show, and is widely regarded as being a success, in contrast to Starmer. Burnham wouldn't be in the running for PM if Starmer hadn't screwed up, but he has of course, so Burnham is now in pole position.
I believe he's said that he was moulded by advisers into being an identikit New Labour candidate. Away from Westminster he's found his own style. Check out the suits he used to wear uncomfortably compared to the DILF chic now. He's also more relaxedly Northern. In his accent, manner and outlook.
Capitalism on steroids might provide a more dynamic and stronger growing economy . There’s more to quality of life though than GDP figures .
The USA has some of the weakest workers rights protections in any western developed country , there’s no guaranteed paid leave , sick , maternity or paternity leave , healthcare costs can bankrupt people and the country is awash with gun violence.
Apart from that it’s marvellous !
I’ve been to the USA and had a good time , I love New York and California but as for living there it’s a no from me .
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
Over a decade of new experiences and a significant career change.
Are you the same as you were over a decade ago? I know I am not.
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
I think Burnham can make a case here. He last stood for leadership in 2015 (I think). Since then he's been Mayor of Manchester, which is very much his own show, and is widely regarded as being a success, in contrast to Starmer. Burnham wouldn't be in the running for PM if Starmer hadn't screwed up, but he has of course, so Burnham is now in pole position.
I believe he's said that he was moulded by advisers into being an identikit New Labour candidate. Away from Westminster he's found his own style. Check out the suits he used to wear uncomfortably compared to the DILF chic now. He's also more relaxedly Northern. In his accent, manner and outlook.
Yeah I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. He seems authentically himself.
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
Over a decade of new experiences and a significant career change.
Are you the same as you were over a decade ago? I know I am not.
Yes and no.
Burnham was a big headed shit 10 years ago.
I've known several such characters. In exactly zero cases has the passage of 10 years made then less big headed, or less of a shit. They sometimes are a fraction better at hiding their true nature, but the nature itself won't have changed.
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
Over a decade of new experiences and a significant career change.
Are you the same as you were over a decade ago? I know I am not.
Yes and no.
Burnham was a big headed shit 10 years ago.
I've known several such characters. In exactly zero cases has the passage of 10 years made then less big headed, or less of a shit. They sometimes are a fraction better at hiding their true nature, but the nature itself won't have changed.
But wait a minute. Can you possibly think "What this country needs is me to run it!" And not have a big head?
Capitalism on steroids might provide a more dynamic and stronger growing economy . There’s more to quality of life though than GDP figures .
The USA has some of the weakest workers rights protections in any western developed country , there’s no guaranteed paid leave , sick , maternity or paternity leave , healthcare costs can bankrupt people and the country is awash with gun violence.
Apart from that it’s marvellous !
I’ve been to the USA and had a good time , I love New York and California but as for living there it’s a no from me .
I suspect several PBers might resile at 10 days vacation a year, too.
“The prime minister spent the weekend at Chequers considering his political future, and allies say that despite his public defiance he is now willing to stand aside should Burnham win a clear mandate in Makerfield and no other challenger emerges.
“If he loses the byelection, it will leave Starmer in office but badly wounded by weeks of damaging attacks from his own MPs and without an obvious successor. One ally said: “It’s impossible to underscore how perilous this is. I would give Andy a 45% chance of winning, maybe a bit more than that.
“It’s compelling to say tell progressive voters to vote for Andy to get Starmer out, but the flip side is you’re saying to Reform voters that if they vote Reform they can finish the Labour party off for good.””
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
Over a decade of new experiences and a significant career change.
Are you the same as you were over a decade ago? I know I am not.
Yes and no.
Burnham was a big headed shit 10 years ago.
I've known several such characters. In exactly zero cases has the passage of 10 years made then less big headed, or less of a shit. They sometimes are a fraction better at hiding their true nature, but the nature itself won't have changed.
Well that's certainly true for Nige, that's for sure.
The Mississippi Miracle is the rapid improvement of K–12 student performance in Mississippi since 2013, widely attributed to a series of policy, curriculum, and pedagogical changes initiated at the state level. The term can also be used to generally refer to improvements in student test scores in other southern states that implemented similar changes, which has also been dubbed the "Southern surge".[1] The positive changes followed decades of low academic performance in the state and likely helped minimize some of the negative educational impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mississippi students were performing a full grade level below their peers around the country as recently as 2013, but by 2024, they were performing nearly half a grade level above the average U.S. student.[2] The Miracle has been accredited to various causes working together, principally driven in Mississippi by the Literacy-Based Promotion Act (LBPA)[3] and in other states by similar forces and trends.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
Well go and live there. Your wider point is irrelevant to our political choices.
One of the silliest bits of the Brexit debate was this idea that if we adopt policies similar to place X then we become like place X.
Let’s have an Australian-style points system. Then we’ll all live in eternal sunshine and spend our time surfing and having barbies. Let’s have a Norway-style deal and we’ll be an ultra-rich petrostate with a sovereign wealth fund.
A lot of the “we should trade more with places like New Zealand” was really people just envious of the All Blacks.
In the last instance, I think it was justifiable nostalgia at the very strong relationships we had there. New Zealand became notably poorer when we joined the EEC and our food imports radically changed. I'm in favour of some of those relationships being rekindled if it's commercially beneficial to both parties. I couldn't give a monkeys about the rugby.
Regarding your wider point, to paraphrase - "what's wrong with being poor?" - in the short term what's wrong with it is that living standards fall, and in the longer term, if imbalances in wealth creation persist, the wealthy countries can and will control the poor.
Where in any of my posts is there anything remotely like “what’s wrong with being poor”?
I think you’re internalising those American self-chats they like to have.
I was paraphrasing. Would "what's all the fuss about being poor?" be more accurate? As I understand it, your argument is yes Europe is a bit poorer than the US, but if the US wasn't making it into a pissing contest, everybody would be quite happy with their lot. If that's not your argument, clearly I haven't got it.
No, that’s not my argument at all.
I am simply saying, there is an infuriating lack of any sort of prescription from this debate. What’s the so-what? Is it that Europe should “be more American”? Is it that we should bow before their cultural superiority? It’s certainly not that we should get more competitive with them and undercut their industries.
They’re not doing this whole thing because they want us to change policy or do anything about it. They’re doing it because it makes them feel good, and superior.
We all know the US is more economically dynamic than the European average. It’s been the case for as long as I remember. In the 1950s the gap was so big we were on rations and averaging several inches shorter than them. But it’s only recently that they’ve become quite so complacently smug about the whole thing.
The percentage of people in the US who basically believe that someone else ought to pay their bills is a lot lower than it is in the UK. So we need to become more like them in that respect in my opinion, and if we did we'd all be better off.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
Well go and live there. Your wider point is irrelevant to our political choices.
One of the silliest bits of the Brexit debate was this idea that if we adopt policies similar to place X then we become like place X.
Let’s have an Australian-style points system. Then we’ll all live in eternal sunshine and spend our time surfing and having barbies. Let’s have a Norway-style deal and we’ll be an ultra-rich petrostate with a sovereign wealth fund.
A lot of the “we should trade more with places like New Zealand” was really people just envious of the All Blacks.
In the last instance, I think it was justifiable nostalgia at the very strong relationships we had there. New Zealand became notably poorer when we joined the EEC and our food imports radically changed. I'm in favour of some of those relationships being rekindled if it's commercially beneficial to both parties. I couldn't give a monkeys about the rugby.
Regarding your wider point, to paraphrase - "what's wrong with being poor?" - in the short term what's wrong with it is that living standards fall, and in the longer term, if imbalances in wealth creation persist, the wealthy countries can and will control the poor.
Where in any of my posts is there anything remotely like “what’s wrong with being poor”?
I think you’re internalising those American self-chats they like to have.
I was paraphrasing. Would "what's all the fuss about being poor?" be more accurate? As I understand it, your argument is yes Europe is a bit poorer than the US, but if the US wasn't making it into a pissing contest, everybody would be quite happy with their lot. If that's not your argument, clearly I haven't got it.
No, that’s not my argument at all.
I am simply saying, there is an infuriating lack of any sort of prescription from this debate. What’s the so-what? Is it that Europe should “be more American”? Is it that we should bow before their cultural superiority? It’s certainly not that we should get more competitive with them and undercut their industries.
They’re not doing this whole thing because they want us to change policy or do anything about it. They’re doing it because it makes them feel good, and superior.
We all know the US is more economically dynamic than the European average. It’s been the case for as long as I remember. In the 1950s the gap was so big we were on rations and averaging several inches shorter than them. But it’s only recently that they’ve become quite so complacently smug about the whole thing.
The percentage of people in the US who basically believe that someone else ought to pay their bills is a lot lower than it is in the UK. So we need to become more like them in that respect in my opinion, and if we did we'd all be better off.
Well, forgetting Medicare and Medicaid perhaps, broadly yes but paradoxically Americans are more likely to be subsidised indirectly by government activity (and did Michael Moore make a documentary showing Republicans being surprised by this?) such as police forces, nearby military bases and so on.
One of the greatest surprises of my life: The Mississippi Miracle is the rapid improvement of K–12 student performance in Mississippi since 2013, widely attributed to a series of policy, curriculum, and pedagogical changes initiated at the state level. The term can also be used to generally refer to improvements in student test scores in other southern states that implemented similar changes, which has also been dubbed the "Southern surge".[1] The positive changes followed decades of low academic performance in the state and likely helped minimize some of the negative educational impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mississippi students were performing a full grade level below their peers around the country as recently as 2013, but by 2024, they were performing nearly half a grade level above the average U.S. student.[2] The Miracle has been accredited to various causes working together, principally driven in Mississippi by the Literacy-Based Promotion Act (LBPA)[3] and in other states by similar forces and trends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Miracle
And a most pleasant one.
Phonics and reading support generally. We had something similar here in 2000-ish I think.
Some would argue that in secondary schools and even universities the pedagogical pendulum has swung too far, with too much emphasis on ‘teaching to the test’ which produced the recent controversy over a maths exam in Scotland where pupils were confused not by the mathematics but by unfamiliar ‘command words’ used in the questions – by which I think is meant pupils had been coached that the word ‘prove’ needed one sort of answer; ‘show’ another; ‘derive’ a third and so on.
UK-based American YouTuber Evan Edinger made a probably relevant video (it's been some time since I watched it):-
But yes, as the denizens of Mississippi found, reading is key. It is probably a good rule of thumb that differences in achievement between two different sub-populations are due to the system and not the people, cf North and South Korea, East and West Germany, and indeed Mississippi against other American states.
ETA rant: Vanilla does not properly handle internal quotes, even though the preview looks correct. I have therefore changed Jim's quote to use italics instead.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
Some good points but Singapore has the best educational outcomes in the world
It would be funny if Makerfield CLP selected a different candidate. Does no-one on the committee have a niece interested in politics? Will Harriet Harman impose an all-women shortlist?
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
I'm not clear what point is being made by the comparison with US prosperity ?
Europe using the US, and more to the point, neither are we. Our future economic fate largely rests largely with Europe (and always has), whether we're in or out of the EU.
The US is a continental petro state with the largest capital market in the world. That is not something we can emulate.
Though, of course, Europe has some of the potential to do that. And a bit more of it, were we in the EU.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
Well go and live there. Your wider point is irrelevant to our political choices.
One of the silliest bits of the Brexit debate was this idea that if we adopt policies similar to place X then we become like place X.
Let’s have an Australian-style points system. Then we’ll all live in eternal sunshine and spend our time surfing and having barbies. Let’s have a Norway-style deal and we’ll be an ultra-rich petrostate with a sovereign wealth fund.
A lot of the “we should trade more with places like New Zealand” was really people just envious of the All Blacks.
In the last instance, I think it was justifiable nostalgia at the very strong relationships we had there. New Zealand became notably poorer when we joined the EEC and our food imports radically changed. I'm in favour of some of those relationships being rekindled if it's commercially beneficial to both parties. I couldn't give a monkeys about the rugby.
Regarding your wider point, to paraphrase - "what's wrong with being poor?" - in the short term what's wrong with it is that living standards fall, and in the longer term, if imbalances in wealth creation persist, the wealthy countries can and will control the poor.
Where in any of my posts is there anything remotely like “what’s wrong with being poor”?
I think you’re internalising those American self-chats they like to have.
I was paraphrasing. Would "what's all the fuss about being poor?" be more accurate? As I understand it, your argument is yes Europe is a bit poorer than the US, but if the US wasn't making it into a pissing contest, everybody would be quite happy with their lot. If that's not your argument, clearly I haven't got it.
No, that’s not my argument at all.
I am simply saying, there is an infuriating lack of any sort of prescription from this debate. What’s the so-what? Is it that Europe should “be more American”? Is it that we should bow before their cultural superiority? It’s certainly not that we should get more competitive with them and undercut their industries.
They’re not doing this whole thing because they want us to change policy or do anything about it. They’re doing it because it makes them feel good, and superior.
We all know the US is more economically dynamic than the European average. It’s been the case for as long as I remember. In the 1950s the gap was so big we were on rations and averaging several inches shorter than them. But it’s only recently that they’ve become quite so complacently smug about the whole thing.
The percentage of people in the US who basically believe that someone else ought to pay their bills is a lot lower than it is in the UK. So we need to become more like them in that respect in my opinion, and if we did we'd all be better off.
That will never happen.
Only this weekend I overheard a pensioner saying "I paid my taxes all my life", as if they're the only generation to have done it, and thus were perfectly entitled to the triple lock and all their subsidies.
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago
This one is a real keeper.
I'll remember that one next time a Remainer tries to argue against Brexit on the basis of its GDP hit.
I'm not clear what point is being made by the comparison with US prosperity ?
Europe using the US, and more to the point, neither are we. Our future economic fate largely rests largely with Europe (and always has), whether we're in or out of the EU.
The US is a continental petro state with the largest capital market in the world. That is not something we can emulate.
Though, of course, Europe has some of the potential to do that. And a bit more of it, were we in the EU.
Projection.
It's you with the problem. You're allowed to disagree, you realise ?
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
It feels as open and shut as the Green Party leader contest when it was clear even to outside casual observers from aa mile out that Polanski was going to walk it.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
How is this Andy different from the previous Andy who was soundly beaten for the Labour leadership?
Over a decade of new experiences and a significant career change.
Are you the same as you were over a decade ago? I know I am not.
Yes and no.
Burnham was a big headed shit 10 years ago.
I've known several such characters. In exactly zero cases has the passage of 10 years made then less big headed, or less of a shit. They sometimes are a fraction better at hiding their true nature, but the nature itself won't have changed.
Well that's certainly true for Nige, that's for sure.
If it came to big headed shithousery, stand by for a 250 seat Tory majority at the next GE!
Just reposting this as as soon as I posted it a new thread opened !
I think Starmer had the right balance currently in terms of his EU reset . It gives something to those pro EU without becoming too divisive for those that voted to Leave .
When you look at polling on whether to rejoin it’s not the headline figure that’s important.
So the figure for rejoin according to YouGov is 55% but that drops to 36% when you caveat that with losing the UKs previous opt outs in terms of Schengen , the Euro and the rebate.
And in terms of government priorities 44% think it’s the wrong priority v 37% who think it should be .
I don’t think there’s an issue with putting it in a future Labour manifesto with the explicit understanding that the terms of re-joining are clearly laid out and agreed beforehand with the EU , something the Leave side failed to do with Brexit.
You can’t find many people more pro EU than me but I think this conversation is for down the road and not now.
Am I the only person who thinks that being in the EU with Schengen and the Euro is better than without?
Being in the Euro would lower the countries borrowing costs and I like Schengen but I don’t think we’re the voters any future rejoin campaign are worrying about.
In reality the UK could kick the Euro can far down the road as you can put in tests to join that you can never pass but most of the public don’t do nuance or grey areas . The stay out campaign will hammer the Euro issue .
... and rightly so.
Though plenty of reputable economists believe we should be in the Single Market, and maybe Schengen, very few support the UK's membership of the euro.
Being in the euro would be an economic catastrophe because it would mean that our monetary and exchange rate policy would be set, not according to our needs, but those of other countries, with whose economic cycles we are often not aligned.
Every generation except the current one in the last century has made this mistake, and every time it has ended in financial disaster. Adopting the gold standard after the first world war led to a perma-slump in the 1920s; using a fixed exchange rate after the Second World War impeded recovery until there was a large devaluation in 1949, pretty much the same thing happened in 1967, and shadowing and then joining the ERM gave us an unnecssary period of inflation then slump around 1990 before we were forced out in 1992.
Thank God we kept out of the euro which nearly collapsed (and probably would have collapsed completely had we been members) in 2012.
Still, if we need to repeat the same blunder again, so be it. But we shouldn't be in any illusions as to what happens to debtor countries in exchange rate mechanisms rigged in favour of creditors - short-lived boom followed by long-lasting or even permanent recession and one or more lost decades of growth as a result.
Joining the Euro is a decision that can only be taken once.
There are at least 19 examples of countries leaving currency unions, so it’s not an irrevocable decision.
But there are no examples of anyone quitting the euro. Because it is so inextricably tied in to the political union that goes with it, and because economics is a lot more complex these days
What's more, if the euro really did fracture, that would be a disaster not just for the economy leaving, but for all euro members. The currency would suddenly come into question, the foundations of the EU would tremble, and European debt would become way more expensive. Calamity
This is why, in extremis, Brussels will over-rule democratic votes and send in the euro-commissars to run countries - Italy, Greece - rather than risk anyone leaving the euro. But how long can they keep doing that without a major revolt? What happens if Le Pen wins in Paris? Or, even more extreme, the AfD in Germany?
The euro is a disaster waiting to happen
Everything's a disaster waiting to happen if you just big up the possible future negative developments.
Arguably, the disaster has already happened. European growth was meant to be boosted, significantly, by the euro. That's what all the europhile economists claimed. Has this happened? Let's check the numbers
Eurozone GDP grew 1.5% across 2025; the ECB projects 1.4% in 2025, 1.2% in 2026, and 1.4% in 2027 and 2028. That's, frankly, dismal. America is achieving twice this rate of growth, and has done for yeears. Look at the wider picture and it gets even worse. The eurozone has averaged something like 1.3% real GDP growth for a quarter of a century. The convergence with American living standards that was supposed to follow Maastricht has, to put it politely, not occurred. Europe has gone backwards
So the euro is shite
America has political and monetary union as it happens. And several other structural advantages. I doubt Europe would have matched its growth if it had simply kept all its little separate currencies.
Why?
Because it makes no sense. The overperformer of the two places is the one that has fully developed political and monetary union. Would it do even better as 50 sovereign states with 50 currencies? One can't know but my sense is not. Any case, the US v Europe economic performance delta is not down to currency technicalities. There's loads of factors.
It's massive energy surplus and exports are the oily elephant in the room and overlooked by so many deregulate and dehumanise types. Hard not to grow when you've so much energy coming out the wells.
And its global reserve currency.
Many many factors.
It's a beast, the US economy. Even Trump2 can't wreck it.
Do you think the Euro has been a success for Italy?
Not really. Nor was the Lire. Success or failure of a country's economy isn't mainly down to what currency it uses.
Has Italy's growth performance got better or worse under the Euro?
I'm not sure Mario Draghi would share your positive take on the European economy.
I can give you the answer
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Italy has averaged 0.4% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Italy averaged 2.4% real GDP growth per annum
Put it another way: in the 26 years before joining the euro, the Italian economy grew by about 55%. In the 26 years since, it has grown by 14%
Adopting the euro meant Italian growth was slashed to a fifth of what it was before. For Italy, the euro was a disaster
In the 26 years since the euro's inception (1999-2024), Japan has averaged 0.7% real GDP growth per annum
In the 26 years PRECEDING the euro's inception (1973-1999) Japan averaged 3.1% real GDP growth per annum
Check it. The euro has had a far reaching impact.
But remember Mississippi is significantly richer than the UK.
They have substantially more Ss. 4 of them. And 2 Ps. We have none.
I still search for the sequitur from the whole Europoor meme. Is it simply to make American social media types feel smug? Or is there some policy prescription?
The meme is: even the poorest bits of America are now richer than most of Europe. And it is true, and it is now visibly true
I'm not sure what your problem is, with actual data?
I can only find one EU state with a lower life expectancy - Bulgaria. Their infant mortality is twice as high as Bulgaria's. They are more than twice as obese as the fattest EU country. Their murder rate is 5x the highest anywhere in the EU. Their absolute poverty rate is 28%, v the EU at about 6%.
This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago.
"This is why serious people moved away from GDP, in all its forms, some time ago"
I mean, where to start with this? Maybe nowhere. What is wrong with you?
"Serious people no longer care about GDP, at all, whether it is GDP by PPP or nominal, or GDP per capita, it is all nonsense. What matters is the number of free milk fountains per hectare"
I knew you guys were dumb, I didn't realise you were THIS dumb
Yes, that's exactly right. There's not much point in an economy that does not deliver good outcomes for the people who live there - whether that is decent private incomes or great public services or free milk fountains (can you imagine the cleaning). GDP per capita strongly correlates with such outcomes - but it takes a bit more than that to achieve this.
Finland has a GDP per capita roughly the same as Mississippi. They live 10 years longer, their murder rate is 90% lower, their poverty rate is 90% lower, prison rate 95% lower. They have the best educational outcomes in the world - while 75% of 10 year olds in Mississippi cannot read. Which of the two countries do you think people in Britain wish to emulate?
I've been to both, and yes I would absolutely rather live in New Orleans compared to.... Helsinki
New Orleans is a glorious capital of hedonism, and swooningly beautiful, with amazing food, amazing music and amazing Gulf oysters. Helsinki is.... boring but pleasant, with hideous winters. They do know how to use dill, however
New Orleans is also in Louisiana
lol. Fair
However my wider point remains. I would rather live in the poorer bits of, say, the Deep South, than boring if somewhat prosperous bits of "Scandinavia"
I find Scandinavia incredibly dull. Even the toughest parts of America have a dynamism and energy that is lacking in much (but not all) of Europe
But, each to their own
That’s just idiotic. The poorer bits of those states are grim and are, as usual in the US, a long drive away from anywhere different. Dont be fooled by the economic data; instead go brush up on the difference between mean and median; the wealth in Mississippi is probably mostly held by ten people.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Streeting has resigned from the cabinet and is calling for Starmer to be replaced. Why on earth shouldn't he set out alternative policy ideas ? It is - yet again - the height of entitled arrogance for the Burnham camp to expect everyone just to roll over for him.
A pathetic response to Streeting.
Streeting also knows that if Burnham wins the by-election, his next chance of becoming Labour leader will suddenly jump years into the future and not be when Labour has over 400 MPs.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Streeting has resigned from the cabinet and is calling for Starmer to be replaced. Why on earth shouldn't he set out alternative policy ideas ? It is - yet again - the height of entitled arrogance for the Burnham camp to expect everyone just to roll over for him.
A pathetic response to Streeting.
Streeting also knows that if Burnham wins the by-election, his next chance of becoming Labour leader will suddenly jump years into the future and not be when Labour has over 400 MPs.
Since he has no chance anyway that's hardly relevant.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Streeting has resigned from the cabinet and is calling for Starmer to be replaced. Why on earth shouldn't he set out alternative policy ideas ? It is - yet again - the height of entitled arrogance for the Burnham camp to expect everyone just to roll over for him.
A pathetic response to Streeting.
Streeting also knows that if Burnham wins the by-election, his next chance of becoming Labour leader will suddenly jump years into the future and not be when Labour has over 400 MPs.
Since he has no chance anyway that's hardly relevant.
You and I know that, but the relevant thing here is whether Streeting knows that.
I suspect he half-does, and that the sudden urgency to dump Starmer comes from the realisation that he'll be yesterday's jam by this time next year. But that half-realisation is drowned out by standard political ambition.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
How the myth that Labour have done nothing in 2 years became fixed in the minds of voters .
A relentless anti Labour campaign by the media and poor No 10 communications culminated in where we are today.
It isn't the task of the media to be a PR company for any government. This government has been terrible at communications, and especially the art of communicating convincingly by answering questions and not being evasive.
also terrible decision making. Sacking Robbins and then clinging on....
I think that is largely correct.
But neither is it the job of Allister Heath and Allison Pearson to represent fiction as fact. The job of the Telegraph ( and GB News and Talk TV) is to report the news objectively not to use smoke and mirrors to roll the pitch for the next Government in 3,4,5 years time. One could argue a competent Government should have the wherewithal to call out and correct inaccuracies, but it seems this one didn't.
Starmer is wholly to blame for this.
Largely agree, but there is no such thing as objective news coverage. They could all try harder to separate fact and opinion. So we have to rely on an open free media.
There are loads of outlets who would reasonably fairly but critically report on Labour doing well. Mirror, Guardian, FT, New Statesman, Economist, Ch4, ITV, BBC, Times to some extent, vast numbers on X and other social media. An infinity of podcasts.
As to the Right Wing media, in general they gave the Tories a hard time in government IIRC. I find it hard to follow because it's unreadable.
Whereas I accept there will be a bias when reporting news, any news, it is the out and out lies I was objecting to.
It's like giving a false equivalent to reporting by Rachel Maddows and. Jesse Watters. Maddows takes a story, reports the story and opines from the left. Jesse Watters ignores any story but just makes stuff up with no basis upon fact, to promote his cause, which is invariably Trump.
Largely agree. I think in this particular age the prevalence of lies is going to be a reality and unavoidable. I imagine most people just avoid wasting much time on lying outlets. I think everyone knows that in a social media age you have the same sort of duty towards fact checking and lie detection that you do towards locking your front door when you go on holiday.
In outlets regarded as responsible (there are lots) the principle distortion is done by story selection. Take the BBC, which I greatly admire. They would, I think, never run a series, fully researched, to try to demonstrate all the ways in which people manipulate and abuse the benefits and welfare system. Or do detailed case studies on how particular families spend years and generations doing little at our expense. (The sort of project the odious Matt Goodwin would be fond of). But they are never short of super people who are going to suffer egregiously from any change in the system.
Top BBC headline this morning is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626znvne0xo “UK-registered firms linked to payments for small-boat crossings, BBC finds”. So, another detailed research piece on people abusing the asylum system by the BBC.
@algarkirk , are you going to apologise to the BBC?
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Streeting has resigned from the cabinet and is calling for Starmer to be replaced. Why on earth shouldn't he set out alternative policy ideas ? It is - yet again - the height of entitled arrogance for the Burnham camp to expect everyone just to roll over for him.
A pathetic response to Streeting.
Streeting also knows that if Burnham wins the by-election, his next chance of becoming Labour leader will suddenly jump years into the future and not be when Labour has over 400 MPs.
Since he has no chance anyway that's hardly relevant.
Except that’s not how he sees it. If Burnham doesn’t get in, Starmer remains nobbled, and he just has to beat Ange.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Streeting has resigned from the cabinet and is calling for Starmer to be replaced. Why on earth shouldn't he set out alternative policy ideas ? It is - yet again - the height of entitled arrogance for the Burnham camp to expect everyone just to roll over for him.
A pathetic response to Streeting.
Streeting also knows that if Burnham wins the by-election, his next chance of becoming Labour leader will suddenly jump years into the future and not be when Labour has over 400 MPs.
Since he has no chance anyway that's hardly relevant.
You and I know that, but the relevant thing here is whether Streeting knows that.
I suspect he half-does, and that the sudden urgency to dump Starmer comes from the realisation that he'll be yesterday's jam by this time next year. But that half-realisation is drowned out by standard political ambition.
I do not think Streeting will be nexr PM irrespective of whether Burnham wins or not because in the next couple of weeks thousands of Mandelson messages will drop and remind everyone how close Streeting was to him
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
Long-term is easy;
Labour are the opposition, Reform are the enemy, the Conservative aim has to be to survive past Farage and hope that Reform is largely a personal cult. Anything that boosts Reform is bad for the Conservatives.
That's not much fun for the current custodians of the Conservative Party, though.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
Aa a conservative I would support the party not least because Reform arrogantly wanted the conservatives to stand aside and it denies Reform a vote
I hope Burnham wins because it ends Starmer's disastrous Premiership and deflates Farage's balloon
Rayner would be a disaster for the country and aa I just posted lots of peril for Streeting with the imminent release if the Mandelson files
Of course other conservatives may vote differently
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
I think it's in the Tories' interests for Reform to win following a calamitous campaign by Burnham in which the Labour Party is clearly split.
Burnhams comments on the EU aren’t exactly hidden away in a drawer . Reform had plenty of material to work with already .
Not sure this briefing to the Times helps much as it might get picked up by the general media and turn into a bigger story.
It's a foretaste of how bitter the Labour civil war over Starmer's replacement will be.
My straw poll of a few dozen Labour types over the last few days suggests Burnham is almost universally seen as the messiah. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. So I’m not convinced by the civil war thing.
Projection.
I could present this in a PowerPoint if you like. Or would you prefer OHP?
"Andy Burnham's allies say former Health Secretary Wes Streeting's comments that Britain lies "one day back in the European Union" were unhelpful, as he seeks to stand in the Makerfield by-election"
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
I think it's in the Tories' interests for Reform to win following a calamitous campaign by Burnham in which the Labour Party is clearly split.
Yesterday when Kemi was asked who she would like to see win in Makerfield she did not say "the Conservatives". Instead she gave a non-answer.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
I think it's in the Tories' interests for Reform to win following a calamitous campaign by Burnham in which the Labour Party is clearly split.
Yes that was my thinking.
Tories got just shy of 11% at the last election, as Reform got more than 30%.
So the obvious move from the Tories is to run a paper candidate - assuming that Reform run a properly-vetted local candidate who doesn’t turn out to be one of Tommy Robinson’s football hooligan mates
Big G sees it the other way round, that from the country’s point of view Burnham’s better than Rayner or Streeting; that Reform are the Tories’ main rivals, so the Tories should campaign hard and split the right-of-centre vote.
I think both are valid, but given the seat demographics the Tory soft-pedal is the better option here.
"Andy Burnham's allies say former Health Secretary Wes Streeting's comments that Britain lies "one day back in the European Union" were unhelpful, as he seeks to stand in the Makerfield by-election"
Well, duh. That's the point.
A bit of discomfort in Team Ego.
Streeting needs to make a decision though. Its been floated that he might be Burnham's Chancellor. Any more unhelpful contributions like that and he might have to forget about that. I expect we will see him canvassing for Burnham soon enough but like the rest of us he would probably like to see some polling first to assess his chances.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
I think it's in the Tories' interests for Reform to win following a calamitous campaign by Burnham in which the Labour Party is clearly split.
Yesterday when Kemi was asked who she would like to see win in Makerfield she did not say "the Conservatives". Instead she gave a non-answer.
That's just realist - because if she answered the conservatives the follow up question would be and as the Tories are not going to win who would you prefer.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
I think it's in the Tories' interests for Reform to win following a calamitous campaign by Burnham in which the Labour Party is clearly split.
Yes that was my thinking.
Tories got just shy of 11% at the last election, as Reform got more than 30%.
So the obvious move from the Tories is to run a paper candidate - assuming that Reform run a properly-vetted local candidate who doesn’t turn out to be one of Tommy Robinson’s football hooligan mates
Big G sees it the other way round, that from the country’s point of view Burnham’s better than Rayner or Streeting; that Reform are the Tories’ main rivals, so the Tories should campaign hard and split the right-of-centre vote.
I think both are valid, but given the seat demographics the Tory soft-pedal is the better option here.
I think its strategic against tactical and the strategic position supports @Big_G_NorthWales. Reform is a threat to the very existence of the Tory party. Labour isn't. A win for Reform here would throw Labour into total chaos and undermine the Labour government but it would make Reform, not the Tories, the threat to that government. The price for the Tories of a Reform win is too high a price to pay and they should do what they can to encourage their supporters not to back Reform.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
I think it's in the Tories' interests for Reform to win following a calamitous campaign by Burnham in which the Labour Party is clearly split.
Yes that was my thinking.
Tories got just shy of 11% at the last election, as Reform got more than 30%.
So the obvious move from the Tories is to run a paper candidate - assuming that Reform run a properly-vetted local candidate who doesn’t turn out to be one of Tommy Robinson’s football hooligan mates
Big G sees it the other way round, that from the country’s point of view Burnham’s better than Rayner or Streeting; that Reform are the Tories’ main rivals, so the Tories should campaign hard and split the right-of-centre vote.
I think both are valid, but given the seat demographics the Tory soft-pedal is the better option here.
I think its strategic against tactical and the strategic position supports @Big_G_NorthWales. Reform is a threat to the very existence of the Tory party. Labour isn't. A win for Reform here would throw Labour into total chaos and undermine the Labour government but it would make Reform, not the Tories, the threat to that government. The price for the Tories of a Reform win is too high a price to pay and they should do what they can to encourage their supporters not to back Reform.
I agree on strategy v tactics, but would save strategy for the general election, use the tactics for a by-election which is only happening as a vanity project for the Labour candidate.
Andy Burnham’s allies have accused Wes Streeting of trying to derail the mayor’s campaign for No 10 by reopening Labour’s Brexit battles and playing into the hands of Reform UK
His intervention prompted a furious response from Burnham’s supporters, who said it was a deliberate attempt to elevate Brexit as an issue in the Leave-voting seat of Makerfield, which the mayor of Greater Manchester must win to contest the party leadership
One Burnham ally said: “Wes’s only hope at becoming the next leader is for Andy to lose the by-election. [Streeting’s] comments … are counterproductive to Labour winning this by-election. It’s very transparent.”
An MP close to Burnham said it was a “a roll of the dice” by Streeting because “he can see the writing is on the wall”. A friend of Burnham said Streeting was “clearly trying to create a dividing line.”
Please please please let's not talk about Brexit until after I've won.
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
It’s an unusual situation. Normally, a politician has to win over their party before winning over the public. This is the reverse.
The public really don’t like being told what to think by the politicians. Burnham, like Starmer, is tying himself in knots to say one thing nationally and the opposite locally.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
It’s an interesting question what is in the Tories’ best long term interests. Remember there’s also the question of Reform winning the by-election, which is bad news for them, compared to Reform’s bubble continuing to slowly leak. With a Labour winner, the Tories would prefer Starmer staying to getting Burnham, but maybe they’d rather Burnham than Streeting? Whereas they wouldn’t mind Ange. Burnham also puts PR back on the agenda, which instinctively the Tories hate, yet might actually be in their best interests.
I think it's in the Tories' interests for Reform to win following a calamitous campaign by Burnham in which the Labour Party is clearly split.
Yes that was my thinking.
Tories got just shy of 11% at the last election, as Reform got more than 30%.
So the obvious move from the Tories is to run a paper candidate - assuming that Reform run a properly-vetted local candidate who doesn’t turn out to be one of Tommy Robinson’s football hooligan mates
Big G sees it the other way round, that from the country’s point of view Burnham’s better than Rayner or Streeting; that Reform are the Tories’ main rivals, so the Tories should campaign hard and split the right-of-centre vote.
I think both are valid, but given the seat demographics the Tory soft-pedal is the better option here.
I think its strategic against tactical and the strategic position supports @Big_G_NorthWales. Reform is a threat to the very existence of the Tory party. Labour isn't. A win for Reform here would throw Labour into total chaos and undermine the Labour government but it would make Reform, not the Tories, the threat to that government. The price for the Tories of a Reform win is too high a price to pay and they should do what they can to encourage their supporters not to back Reform.
The best that the Tories have managed in a byelection this parliament is 7% in Runcorn. They didn't reach 2% in Gorton. I am sure that the Tories will once again lose their deposit in Makerfield. It doesn't look good for an official opposition mid term.
They might do better in Aberdeen South, where they had 25% of the vote at the GE. Going backwards there would be pretty grim for them.
I'm not clear what point is being made by the comparison with US prosperity ?
Europe using the US, and more to the point, neither are we. Our future economic fate largely rests largely with Europe (and always has), whether we're in or out of the EU.
The US is a continental petro state with the largest capital market in the world. That is not something we can emulate.
Though, of course, Europe has some of the potential to do that. And a bit more of it, were we in the EU.
Projection.
It's you with the problem. You're allowed to disagree, you realise ?
"Andy Burnham's allies say former Health Secretary Wes Streeting's comments that Britain lies "one day back in the European Union" were unhelpful, as he seeks to stand in the Makerfield by-election"
Well, duh. That's the point.
A bit of discomfort in Team Ego.
Streeting's student-politicking is going to leave him even less popular inside his party than he was before, isn't it?
Comments
One of our problems might be our very narrow focus, as typified in debates on the NHS, which so often seem to come down to doing what we do now or being accused of trying to be the USA. People do bring up that there are alternative options, but the public perception appears to be locked on only those two.
It's extremely silly, but these kind of spats are what you get when internal faultlines get exposed.
Regarding your wider point, to paraphrase - "what's wrong with being poor?" - in the short term what's wrong with it is that living standards fall, and in the longer term, if imbalances in wealth creation persist, the wealthy countries can and will control the poor.
Hence why the “Turkey option” in the Brexit debates was sunk before it started, as was a “Ukraine-style association agreement”.
Andy has a story to sell to the party of rebirth and redemption, it will (possibly briefly) make the MPs feel good about themselves, and most MPs are not particularly ideological (though I expect Labour MPs possibly more so than Tory MPs), it seems like an easy win.
Will some not be happy about it? Surely so, and avoiding a coronation may actually be helpful, but at the moment I'm not seeing where the major challenge to him is coming from. Certainly not Wes.
I think you’re internalising those American self-chats they like to have.
The literacy rate for 10 year olds is slightly higher in Louisiana.
I am simply saying, there is an infuriating lack of any sort of prescription from this debate. What’s the so-what? Is it that Europe should “be more American”? Is it that we should bow before their cultural superiority? It’s certainly not that we should get more competitive with them and undercut their industries.
They’re not doing this whole thing because they want us to change policy or do anything about it. They’re doing it because it makes them feel good, and superior.
We all know the US is more economically dynamic than the European average. It’s been the case for as long as I remember. In the 1950s the gap was so big we were on rations and averaging several inches shorter than them. But it’s only recently that they’ve become quite so complacently smug about the whole thing.
But whether he actually is either of those things is secondary to whether the selectorate believe he is (or might be), and which candidate will inspire them, justifiably or not.
Or would be if ChatGPT/Claude was not going to be doing everything for us soon.
Leaving aside that being a dad is a great thing and being a reasonable dad even better. If we are male we should all want to be centrist dads. So what's the insult again?
The right answer is usually in the middle of two extremes, but sometimes it can be closer to one end than the other.
But then I say that as a self proclaimed Centrist Non-dad.
As I like to say, everything in moderation (including moderation).
Away from Westminster he's found his own style.
Check out the suits he used to wear uncomfortably compared to the DILF chic now.
He's also more relaxedly Northern. In his accent, manner and outlook.
The USA has some of the weakest workers rights protections in any western developed country , there’s no guaranteed paid leave , sick , maternity or paternity leave , healthcare costs can bankrupt people and the country is awash with gun violence.
Apart from that it’s marvellous !
I’ve been to the USA and had a good time , I love New York and California but as for living there it’s a no from me .
Are you the same as you were over a decade ago? I know I am not.
Burnham was a big headed shit 10 years ago.
I've known several such characters. In exactly zero cases has the passage of 10 years made then less big headed, or less of a shit. They sometimes are a fraction better at hiding their true nature, but the nature itself won't have changed.
Edit: Jim Barnes in 1919
Can you possibly think "What this country needs is me to run it!"
And not have a big head?
Easily my longest-priced winner.
@kinabalu
“The prime minister spent the weekend at Chequers considering his political future, and allies say that despite his public defiance he is now willing to stand aside should Burnham win a clear mandate in Makerfield and no other challenger emerges.
“If he loses the byelection, it will leave Starmer in office but badly wounded by weeks of damaging attacks from his own MPs and without an obvious successor. One ally said: “It’s impossible to underscore how perilous this is. I would give Andy a 45% chance of winning, maybe a bit more than that.
“It’s compelling to say tell progressive voters to vote for Andy to get Starmer out, but the flip side is you’re saying to Reform voters that if they vote Reform they can finish the Labour party off for good.””
And a most pleasant one.
Some would argue that in secondary schools and even universities the pedagogical pendulum has swung too far, with too much emphasis on ‘teaching to the test’ which produced the recent controversy over a maths exam in Scotland where pupils were confused not by the mathematics but by unfamiliar ‘command words’ used in the questions – by which I think is meant pupils had been coached that the word ‘prove’ needed one sort of answer; ‘show’ another; ‘derive’ a third and so on.
UK-based American YouTuber Evan Edinger made a probably relevant video (it's been some time since I watched it):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDd-HVz6KFE
I found the biggest difference between British and American school exams
But yes, as the denizens of Mississippi found, reading is key. It is probably a good rule of thumb that differences in achievement between two different sub-populations are due to the system and not the people, cf North and South Korea, East and West Germany, and indeed Mississippi against other American states.
ETA rant: Vanilla does not properly handle internal quotes, even though the preview looks correct. I have therefore changed Jim's quote to use italics instead.
Interesting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFo_Odn2bsc
Welsh Senedd election coverage 2026 (BBC on iPlayer):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002w4bq/election-wales-2026-part-1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002w4bt/election-wales-2026-part-2
Scottish Parliament election coverage 2026 (BBC on iPlayer):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002w3j7/election-2026-scotland-part-1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002w3jb/election-2026-scotland-part-2
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002w3jd/election-2026-scotland-part-3
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/l00588x3/election-2026-scotland-election-2026-scotland-part-4
Scottish Parliament election coverage 2026 (BBC on YouTube):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPe13rjSwuY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COzKcceouGo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35WJ69jb-DA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifddMMGCZ7c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhbC5syQneA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTAdNt98yxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZedkTjQbWA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nQ5un7t_8Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt05I8JA_MY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ebzYbxhmro
Andy Burnham must be the most disingenuous candidate out there.
Only this weekend I overheard a pensioner saying "I paid my taxes all my life", as if they're the only generation to have done it, and thus were perfectly entitled to the triple lock and all their subsidies.
This one is a real keeper.
I'll remember that one next time a Remainer tries to argue against Brexit on the basis of its GDP hit.
You're allowed to disagree, you realise ?
I suspect he half-does, and that the sudden urgency to dump Starmer comes from the realisation that he'll be yesterday's jam by this time next year. But that half-realisation is drowned out by standard political ambition.
I think I could probably be persuaded to vote Reform if I lived in Makerfield, it will be interesting to see how much of a paper candidate the Tories put up.
Nationally, Kemi will want to give the impression of fighting hard for every seat, but locally I suspect they lose their deposit and don’t care much if it keeps Burnham out of the Commons.
Could Burnham’s campaign for the top job be the biggest instant failure since Ron DeSantis?
@algarkirk , are you going to apologise to the BBC?
I do not think Streeting will be nexr PM irrespective of whether Burnham wins or not because in the next couple of weeks thousands of Mandelson messages will drop and remind everyone how close Streeting was to him
Labour are the opposition, Reform are the enemy, the Conservative aim has to be to survive past Farage and hope that Reform is largely a personal cult. Anything that boosts Reform is bad for the Conservatives.
That's not much fun for the current custodians of the Conservative Party, though.
I hope Burnham wins because it ends Starmer's disastrous Premiership and deflates Farage's balloon
Rayner would be a disaster for the country and aa I just posted lots of peril for Streeting with the imminent release if the Mandelson files
Of course other conservatives may vote differently
Well, duh. That's the point.
A bit of discomfort in Team Ego.
Tories got just shy of 11% at the last election, as Reform got more than 30%.
So the obvious move from the Tories is to run a paper candidate - assuming that Reform run a properly-vetted local candidate who doesn’t turn out to be one of Tommy Robinson’s football hooligan mates
Big G sees it the other way round, that from the country’s point of view Burnham’s better than Rayner or Streeting; that Reform are the Tories’ main rivals, so the Tories should campaign hard and split the right-of-centre vote.
I think both are valid, but given the seat demographics the Tory soft-pedal is the better option here.
Why yes, Moscow is indeed still on fire!
https://x.com/naaf0racoon/status/2056131221030138098
In fact not only is Moscow still on fire, but the Kerch Bridge has been closed all night too!
https://x.com/the_real_itdude/status/2056223756075388935
NEW THREAD
Morning malc
They might do better in Aberdeen South, where they had 25% of the vote at the GE. Going backwards there would be pretty grim for them.