Dippenhall and Greenie please advise something positive from seven years of Tory rule. May called the election on Brexit issues but she won't say wether my German friend Heidi will have to return home, will CAP grants to farmers be maintained, employment laws protected, fishing rights changed and a thousand other issues. Uncosted vague promises. She is winging it.
In my opinion calling the referendum was a positive and I can also say ive never been out of work under Tory government, my industry is doing well and under Corbyns I can only see people being struck off due to the over zealous tax's imposed on business owners, that coupled with the £10 minimum wage concerns me hugely and I predict we'll see a lot of people out of work..
Although I'm not voting Tory so not sure why you've asked me that.
Hello - it's me, I'm back with the same question you refused to answer (three times) this time last year.
You said that EU workers were driving down wages in your industry, which was one of the reasons you were voting out. At the same time you repeated the mantra you have above, that you had never been doing so well as under the Tories. I asked you at the time how that could be, both could not be true. You ignored the question. You now state again that your whole industry is doing well. I ask again, how can both be true?
A few points in response to your post about employment. Out of interest @Greenie Junior but over what period are we talking about you never being out of work?
Employment figures under the last Labour government were very, very good until the global economy tanked in 2008 onwards when we started to see the effects of this kicking in. There's also the debate about the nature and quality of the jobs created since 2010.
Your view is naturally coloured by your own experience and that's fair enough to an extent. But what about the 100,000's of ordinary people laid off under Cameron and May since 2010? I refer of course to those jobs that have been cut in the public sector. This seems to be just accepted by many voters who voted for more of the same in 2015 and doubtless will again next week. Then they moan when there's no one to sort out and deliver their parents care package or the time it takes to process the plans for their new extension of course.
When there's rumours of a steel plant closing at a loss of 2000 jobs for example ministers are dispatched, assurances given, blah, blah, blah. It's front page news and everyone agrees 'something' must be done!
Then that same minister will get back to Whitehall and sign off on policies that will lead to many more multiples of those job losses but this time because they are home helps or refuse collectors or librarians or classroom assistants or hospital porters or 100's of other front line roles it's no longer front page news.
Dippenhall and Greenie please advise something positive from seven years of Tory rule. May called the election on Brexit issues but she won't say wether my German friend Heidi will have to return home, will CAP grants to farmers be maintained, employment laws protected, fishing rights changed and a thousand other issues. Uncosted vague promises. She is winging it.
In my opinion calling the referendum was a positive and I can also say ive never been out of work under Tory government, my industry is doing well and under Corbyns I can only see people being struck off due to the over zealous tax's imposed on business owners, that coupled with the £10 minimum wage concerns me hugely and I predict we'll see a lot of people out of work..
Although I'm not voting Tory so not sure why you've asked me that.
Hello - it's me, I'm back with the same question you refused to answer (three times) this time last year.
You said that EU workers were driving down wages in your industry, which was one of the reasons you were voting out. At the same time you repeated the mantra you have above, that you had never been doing so well as under the Tories. I asked you at the time how that could be, both could not be true. You ignored the question. You now state again that your whole industry is doing well. I ask again, how can both be true?
A few points in response to your post about employment. Out of interest @Greenie Junior but over what period are we talking about you never being out of work?
Employment figures under the last Labour government were very, very good until the global economy tanked in 2008 onwards when we started to see the effects of this kicking in. There's also the debate about the nature and quality of the jobs created since 2010.
Your view is naturally coloured by your own experience and that's fair enough to an extent. But what about the 100,000's of ordinary people laid off under Cameron and May since 2010? I refer of course to those jobs that have been cut in the public sector. This seems to be just accepted by many voters who voted for more of the same in 2015 and doubtless will again next week. Then they moan when there's no one to sort out and deliver their parents care package or the time it takes to process the plans for their new extension of course.
When there's rumours of a steel plant closing at a loss of 2000 jobs for example ministers are dispatched, assurances given, blah, blah, blah. It's front page news and everyone agrees 'something' must be done!
Then that same minister will get back to Whitehall and sign off on policies that will lead to many more multiples of those job losses but this time because they are home helps or refuse collectors or librarians or classroom assistants or hospital porters or 100's of other front line roles it's no longer front page news.
Do their jobs not matter to you too?
I think a lot of people (not aiming this at greenie jnr) forget that working in the public sector is a job.
I think people have a bizarre view that as it's a government run service it's not a job, nor a career. Again, not aimed at anyone on here, more to do with how the world of work is painted in this country.
Case in point, most universities and I think university students are caught up in the grad schemes for private companies etc. I remember when I was at Uni 2001 - 2004, I don't remember meeting anyone that said they were off to work for the government
We are well into the time when cuts in public services are not about streamlining management, efficiency savings and stopping waste. It is front line stuff that is being effected, police response times, class sizes, operations not happening, and if we have a long hot summer probably prison riots in an understaffed service. The Tories want an aspirational society where people earn enough wedge for private security, private schools, private health and probably the return of the stocks in local high streets. The bogey man is the EU according to many, which is a handy distraction from considering what kind of society we want to build.
Personally I have never seen how we could expect to get a good deal from the EU. They have a collective interest in screwing us. The negotiations are largely a waste of time. We should have triggered Article 50 last year and got in with dealing with the consequences.
I will become a Czech citizen (dual with continuing UK citizenship) before the Article 50 process ends. Therefore, Michal Barnier represents me as much as David Davies in this process. Would you therefore like to explain to me in what way the EU has an interest in "screwing" the UK. That is a perjorative word, whereas the word "tough" usually ascribed to themselves by May and Davies sounds respectable. Could you explain the difference please?
To assist you, the BBC Europe editor, Katya Adler (a Eurosceptic) has explained on the Today programme that, unlike the UK, the EU is being very transparent about its negotiating agenda. She explains the straightforward reason for this; Michal Barnier has to represent the citizens of 27 countries. He cannot go outside a mandate agreed with all of them. Therefore you can easily find out what it is exactly they want to negotiate, (and what not) in the Article 50 discussion, and ask yourself whether that agenda does not in fact simply represent the legitimate interests of EU citizens (such as me).
Personally I have never seen how we could expect to get a good deal from the EU. They have a collective interest in screwing us. The negotiations are largely a waste of time. We should have triggered Article 50 last year and got in with dealing with the consequences.
I will become a Czech citizen (dual with continuing UK citizenship) before the Article 50 process ends. Therefore, Michal Barnier represents me as much as David Davies in this process. Would you therefore like to explain to me in what way the EU has an interest in "screwing" the UK. That is a perjorative word, whereas the word "tough" usually ascribed to themselves by May and Davies sounds respectable. Could you explain the difference please?
To assist you, the BBC Europe editor, Katya Adler (a Eurosceptic) has explained on the Today programme that, unlike the UK, the EU is being very transparent about its negotiating agenda. She explains the straightforward reason for this; Michal Barnier has to represent the citizens of 27 countries. He cannot go outside a mandate agreed with all of them. Therefore you can easily find out what it is exactly they want to negotiate, (and what not) in the Article 50 discussion, and ask yourself whether that agenda does not in fact simply represent the legitimate interests of EU citizens (such as me).
To your last point,yes it will. The net beneficiary countries are worried that the UK leaving will mean less money for them and the rich countries are worried they will pay more to the poorer ones. They have a united interest in screwing as much out of the UK as they can up front with no promise of any trade deal. I would do the same in their shoes.
I think the negotiation is a charade and a distraction.
The reason the EU has an interest in screwing the UK is that there are lots of pissed off people in other EU countries and a successful Brexit will inspire them. I think the mistake we make about the EU is assuming it primarily represents all 27 countries. Was it representing Greece when it completely stitched them up, imposing an austerity they can never get out of? No the EU primarily works for Germany - GB did/does benefit from being part of the EU - we have a relative strong economy, but a lot of countries dont and just get the scraps and get told off by Merkel if they complain. Who writes the laws - the economic policy etc..? it is Germany.
The reason the EU has an interest in screwing the UK is that there are lots of pissed off people in other EU countries and a successful Brexit will inspire them. I think the mistake we make about the EU is assuming it primarily represents all 27 countries. Was it representing Greece when it completely stitched them up, imposing an austerity they can never get out of? No the EU primarily works for Germany - GB did/does benefit from being part of the EU - we have a relative strong economy, but a lot of countries dont and just get the scraps and get told off by Merkel if they complain. Who writes the laws - the economic policy etc..? it is Germany.
Hang on a minute here. Even as a staunch remainer - I think we're much stronger as part of Europe than we are on the outside looking in, with the yanks as our biggest 'ally' (ha!) even I take issue with the above. Greece is by far the worst example you could give - they are an economic basket case. Their tax system is a joke (nobody pays anyone anything), their pension bill is astronomical (because everyone retires at fifty) and their civil service is the most ridiculously inept in history. The Germans subsidised Greece for donkeys years whilst they literally pissed the money up the wall!
At the Lewisham East hustings last night one of the candidates described the EU as 'undemocratic'. They were of course simply wrong. The EU's democracy might seem cumbersome, might seem remote, but it is nevertheless democratic in as much as ultimately it has to follow the will of the people. It operates a from of democracy, just as the USA operates a form of democracy. It saddens me that we are leaving and returning to a system where the familiar unchanging ruling class will like as not hold sway forever. By leaving the EU we are weakening our personal autonomous sovereignty.
The reason the EU has an interest in screwing the UK is that there are lots of pissed off people in other EU countries and a successful Brexit will inspire them. I think the mistake we make about the EU is assuming it primarily represents all 27 countries. Was it representing Greece when it completely stitched them up, imposing an austerity they can never get out of? No the EU primarily works for Germany - GB did/does benefit from being part of the EU - we have a relative strong economy, but a lot of countries dont and just get the scraps and get told off by Merkel if they complain. Who writes the laws - the economic policy etc..? it is Germany.
Hang on a minute here. Even as a staunch remainer - I think we're much stronger as part of Europe than we are on the outside looking in, with the yanks as our biggest 'ally' (ha!) even I take issue with the above. Greece is by far the worst example you could give - they are an economic basket case. Their tax system is a joke (nobody pays anyone anything), their pension bill is astronomical (because everyone retires at fifty) and their civil service is the most ridiculously inept in history. The Germans subsidised Greece for donkeys years whilst they literally pissed the money up the wall!
Leroy you have just made the best case for leaving the EU I have heard, I like the Greece model, getting Jerry to pay is genius.
I'm no economist but haven't the Tories benefited from a few rounds of QE since they've been in power. I thought this has been used to kickstart the economy etc.
Also people have enjoyed silly interests rates on their mortgages. Does this not contribute to the overall perceived good health of the economy under the Tories
It may sound a bit of a conspiracy theory but at the time, inflation was also kept artificially low by the price of petrol. The Obama administration was trying to politically destabilise Russia by causing the price of oil to fall. The Russian economy was over-reliant on oil exports, the Americans leaned on their OPEC allies to flood the supply of oil and cause the rouble to crash.
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. Instead the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
Also @mcgrandall you make a good point. If that £550 billion just went back into the system to the 'wealth creators' then can you really blame joe public for wanting taxes to hammer the fuck out of the top 5% of earners.....a large proportion of which will be those wealth creators.
The reason the EU has an interest in screwing the UK is that there are lots of pissed off people in other EU countries and a successful Brexit will inspire them. I think the mistake we make about the EU is assuming it primarily represents all 27 countries. Was it representing Greece when it completely stitched them up, imposing an austerity they can never get out of? No the EU primarily works for Germany - GB did/does benefit from being part of the EU - we have a relative strong economy, but a lot of countries dont and just get the scraps and get told off by Merkel if they complain. Who writes the laws - the economic policy etc..? it is Germany.
Honestly Mutts, that really is a lot of bollocks crammed into quite a short post.
1. The measures imposed on Greece were and are primarily inspired by the IMF. You may be aware that it is not a body of the EU.
2. Your remarks about Germany could be taken as offensive but they certainly show an ignorance of the German national personality. Germans believe in living within their means. Thats why many well off Germans never own their own homes, only have debit (not credit) cards, (which often cannot be used in retail outlets) and only invest very cautiously in non cash investments. They can be a bit inflexible in understanding other cultures, but "living within your means" is a favourite mantra of British conservatives, and not a German neo-fascist sentiment, as your posts rather unpleasantly imply.
3. Germany is a net contributor, while CZ where I live is a net beneficiary. Far from "getting the scraps", the Czech Republic's politicians and bureaucrats have been incompetent at tapping up the available funds, and in too many cases have misappropriated the funds they have received. Far from calling for CZ as a country to be punished or thrown out, the German attitude has been to encourage Czech citizens and businesses to pressure its politicians to get hold of the money and to stop stealing it.
4. I have never met a single Frenchman who believes that "the EU primarily works for Germany". I have met quite a few Germans who are unhappy about the CAP budget and who are frustrated that the French are so intransigent about it.
The main problem with our dismal cast of politicians appears to be that most of them have progressed to their position through membership of an increasingly partisan and aggressive party system, where self-interest trumps national interest or introspection at almost every turn. These are people who for the most part are only concerned with their own wealth and power, and are exposed when called upon to do right by the people. Individuals with integrity and open minds will not be coaxed out with higher pay - quite the opposite - in fact I'd bring MP pay down to the national average. The most suitable politicians aren't put off by the pay, they're put off by the quasi-Masonic party structures and the need to curry favour to get anywhere. Running as an independent is a non-starter. Running for anyone except the main two or three parties is a non-starter. And getting into those parties means playing a dismal and petty game that most people with any sense would avoid. I would love to be in a position to change things myself, but I have no desire whatsoever to negotiate my way through even Labour's back-alleys and secret crypts. Perhaps the party is changing now, but my Green membership history is probably enough to rule me out for good. And I'm sure other principled people are in similar situations.
While I agree with the sentiment the problem is most of the Tory cabinet have other massive streams of revenue. You wouldn't get the people who wanted to represent us but the elite who can afford the expense dominating the scene.
Lots to consider there as usual. I'll be fact checking a lot of your assertions with my Swedish mate. dont worry, he is far to the right of me, and is CEO of Haki, a scaffolding company. Nevertheless....
In the meantime, i am glad you brought up the issue of economic predictions of Remainers. I tried to explain ad nauseam that no sensible person with any economic background was predicting instant recession. My personal prediction was that we would see U.K. growth slowing to a rate lower than that in leading euro zone countries. ( wheats for most of last year it was outperforming most, as much touted by Bojo and co.
In that regard, what then are your comments about the Q1 GDP growth figures for,the U.K., and for the euro zone?
Never disputed the possibility of Brexit causing a short term drop in growth. Consumption is what drives our economy and anything that reduces consumer spending will hit output. There would be no double standards if I voted for Brexit, Corbyn and a recession.
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Have people absorbed the significance of Dippy's answer? Here we have arguably the most intellectually rigorous Brexiteer on Cl, conceding that we could see a fall in GDP. In this respect he differs from those shrill immigration-fixated Brexiteers who denounced all such predictions as Project Fear. Respect.
And now here is the significance for the election and particularly health service funding. The Tories are promising increases in funding. And how will it be funded? From economic growth...
Ahem...
Sorry for trying to be honest. We have a binary choice between two parties but there is no binary outcome on the table, much as people pretend there is.
I believe we have hard times ahead, regardless of Brexit, and I just don't think Labour, as currently set up, have the tools to handle serious economic issues. If Labour is not even prepared to contemplate the difficulties of funding their programme I have little faith in their ability to handle unexpected economic problems.
I think the Tories are aware they are not going to have an easy four years without some serious economic upheavals. Not just because of Brexit, but because we have an unsustainable distorted housing market, because of fantasy land interest rates. The housing market must be corrected in a controlled way or it will self correct in an uncontrolled way. Interest rates will inevitably rise as will inflation and house prices will fall as sure as night follows day. Negative equity will halt consumer spending, buy-to-let landlords who have borrowed cheap money and are highly geared will go bankrupt, savers will get decent returns and investments will be confined to ventures that give returns commensurate with the risks. There will be winners and losers but GDP will be hit anytime consumer spending falls off whether Labour or the Tories are in power. More important than how the Tories would fund NHS funding increases in a recession, is how would Labour handle the massive shortfall in the cash they need to cover their pledges in the same recession.
The false sense of predictable Labour outcomes may be attractive, but the dour Tory manifesto I fear is a sign they anticipate difficult times and erred on the side of not making promises to get votes knowing they would otherwise have another 4 years of failed promises.
The majority of people, will vote on an entirely selfish basis of what's in it for me, and on that basis we should vote Labour, and just hope they can deliver. You don't win votes by being honest, both sides know that.
If Labour thought a few weeks ago that it had a chance of gaining power, and were led by someone with experience in leadership rather than campaigning, we would not have seen this manifesto. In truth it was written, in my view, as a propaganda piece to bolster the Corbyn roadshow, not a serious deliverable package. The lack of attention by the leadership to the seemingly unimportant minor matter of costings, is proof enough of that.
I'm no economist but haven't the Tories benefited from a few rounds of QE since they've been in power. I thought this has been used to kickstart the economy etc.
Also people have enjoyed silly interests rates on their mortgages. Does this not contribute to the overall perceived good health of the economy under the Tories
It may sound a bit of a conspiracy theory but at the time, inflation was also kept artificially low by the price of petrol. The Obama administration was trying to politically destabilise Russia by causing the price of oil to fall. The Russian economy was over-reliant on oil exports, the Americans leaned on their OPEC allies to flood the supply of oil and cause the rouble to crash.
What is not a conspiracy theory is who the QE benefited. They believed by giving it to the very industry that caused the problem, this would stimulate the economy. There was no refining over time of a necessary policy started by Gordon Brown during the global financial crisis. At the time, our economy was over reliant on the service and finance industry, Brown was left with little choice but to de-value the currency and prop up those industries. As the years passed QE should have been used to rebalance our economy and shift it's reliance on the service sector, in a similar fashion to FDR after the great depression with the New Deal. the coalition was clueless and wasted a once in a generation chance because they were too short sighted to see the back benefit of capital investment. I think it was over £550 billion the Bank of England injected in to the economy and all of the went to the so called "wealth creators" in finance. When the distribution of income has also got worse in that same period, it is hard to not feel we subsidised a lot of rich people getting richer. I'm still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, but I've been waiting for that since the eighties.
that will the capital investment dippenhall was talking about a few pages back
Put two people in a room and get them to agree about economics!
It was an excellent series of posts by dippenhall but there were a couple of points I would pick up on. Sweden is not a like for like, it is heavily unionised. Sweden does not have a minimum wage and this would probably raise the mean disposable income.
Secondly it wouldn't be Corbyn and Abbott spending the money on capital investment. They have repeatedly stated they would set up a new national investment bank similar to the Bank of England. That would be the second time a labour government would have set up a financial institution to be independent of government to stop it being used as a political tool. Dippenhall clearly doesn't trust Labour but it is a little disengenous to suggest they will hold the purse strings, but that has been the entire Tory campaign.
Lots to consider there as usual. I'll be fact checking a lot of your assertions with my Swedish mate. dont worry, he is far to the right of me, and is CEO of Haki, a scaffolding company. Nevertheless....
In the meantime, i am glad you brought up the issue of economic predictions of Remainers. I tried to explain ad nauseam that no sensible person with any economic background was predicting instant recession. My personal prediction was that we would see U.K. growth slowing to a rate lower than that in leading euro zone countries. ( wheats for most of last year it was outperforming most, as much touted by Bojo and co.
In that regard, what then are your comments about the Q1 GDP growth figures for,the U.K., and for the euro zone?
Never disputed the possibility of Brexit causing a short term drop in growth. Consumption is what drives our economy and anything that reduces consumer spending will hit output. There would be no double standards if I voted for Brexit, Corbyn and a recession.
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Have people absorbed the significance of Dippy's answer? Here we have arguably the most intellectually rigorous Brexiteer on Cl, conceding that we could see a fall in GDP. In this respect he differs from those shrill immigration-fixated Brexiteers who denounced all such predictions as Project Fear. Respect.
And now here is the significance for the election and particularly health service funding. The Tories are promising increases in funding. And how will it be funded? From economic growth...
Ahem...
Sorry for trying to be honest. We have a binary choice between two parties but there is no binary outcome on the table, much as people pretend there is.
I believe we have hard times ahead, regardless of Brexit, and I just don't think Labour, as currently set up, have the tools to handle serious economic issues. If Labour is not even prepared to contemplate the difficulties of funding their programme I have little faith in their ability to handle unexpected economic problems.
I think the Tories are aware they are not going to have an easy four years without some serious economic upheavals. Not just because of Brexit, but because we have an unsustainable distorted housing market, because of fantasy land interest rates. The housing market must be corrected in a controlled way or it will self correct in an uncontrolled way. Interest rates will inevitably rise as will inflation and house prices will fall as sure as night follows day. Negative equity will halt consumer spending, buy-to-let landlords who have borrowed cheap money and are highly geared will go bankrupt, savers will get decent returns and investments will be confined to ventures that give returns commensurate with the risks. There will be winners and losers but GDP will be hit anytime consumer spending falls off whether Labour or the Tories are in power. More important than how the Tories would fund NHS funding increases in a recession, is how would Labour handle the massive shortfall in the cash they need to cover their pledges in the same recession.
The false sense of predictable Labour outcomes may be attractive, but the dour Tory manifesto I fear is a sign they anticipate difficult times and erred on the side of not making promises to get votes knowing they would otherwise have another 4 years of failed promises.
The majority of people, will vote on an entirely selfish basis of what's in it for me, and on that basis we should vote Labour, and just hope they can deliver. You don't win votes by being honest, both sides know that.
If Labour thought a few weeks ago that it had a chance of gaining power, and were led by someone with experience in leadership rather than campaigning, we would not have seen this manifesto. In truth it was written, in my view, as a propaganda piece to bolster the Corbyn roadshow, not a serious deliverable package. The lack of attention by the leadership to the seemingly unimportant minor matter of costings, is proof enough of that.
Absolutely spot on about the housing market. People are going to pay a heavy price for successive governments using the housing market as a tool to cover up poor economic growth/policy.
With help to buy the government has put themselves in a situation where they are invested in a huge number of UK properties and therefore can't afford to let the housing market fall. An extended period of stagnation would be the least worst outcome for the government, but such a situation seems unlikely to be achievable. Prices rise and fall, they very rarely stay at a fixed point and to achieve that would require an amazing balancing act where a government would have to move uncharacteristically (probably impossibly) quickly in order to counteract each influence on the market that would lower or raise prices.
On another line, I saw the below quote in Dippenhall's otherwise excellent post: "If Labour is not even prepared to contemplate the difficulties of funding their programme I have little faith in their ability to handle unexpected economic problems."
How the hell would any of us know what they are contemplating in private? Why would anybody assume they aren't thinking about how funding would work just because they're not stupid enough to commit political suicide by coming out and saying they don't know where all the money is coming from. Yet we're supposed to have faith in the Tories who have inflicted 7 years of a provably unsuccessful fiscal policy (good luck finding a single reputable economist who things austerity could ever work) on the country, won't cost any policies or discuss where the few numbers they have mentioned are going to come from?
Lots to consider there as usual. I'll be fact checking a lot of your assertions with my Swedish mate. dont worry, he is far to the right of me, and is CEO of Haki, a scaffolding company. Nevertheless....
In the meantime, i am glad you brought up the issue of economic predictions of Remainers. I tried to explain ad nauseam that no sensible person with any economic background was predicting instant recession. My personal prediction was that we would see U.K. growth slowing to a rate lower than that in leading euro zone countries. ( wheats for most of last year it was outperforming most, as much touted by Bojo and co.
In that regard, what then are your comments about the Q1 GDP growth figures for,the U.K., and for the euro zone?
Never disputed the possibility of Brexit causing a short term drop in growth. Consumption is what drives our economy and anything that reduces consumer spending will hit output. There would be no double standards if I voted for Brexit, Corbyn and a recession.
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Have people absorbed the significance of Dippy's answer? Here we have arguably the most intellectually rigorous Brexiteer on Cl, conceding that we could see a fall in GDP. In this respect he differs from those shrill immigration-fixated Brexiteers who denounced all such predictions as Project Fear. Respect.
And now here is the significance for the election and particularly health service funding. The Tories are promising increases in funding. And how will it be funded? From economic growth...
Ahem...
Sorry for trying to be honest. We have a binary choice between two parties but there is no binary outcome on the table, much as people pretend there is.
I believe we have hard times ahead, regardless of Brexit, and I just don't think Labour, as currently set up, have the tools to handle serious economic issues. If Labour is not even prepared to contemplate the difficulties of funding their programme I have little faith in their ability to handle unexpected economic problems.
I think the Tories are aware they are not going to have an easy four years without some serious economic upheavals. Not just because of Brexit, but because we have an unsustainable distorted housing market, because of fantasy land interest rates. The housing market must be corrected in a controlled way or it will self correct in an uncontrolled way. Interest rates will inevitably rise as will inflation and house prices will fall as sure as night follows day. Negative equity will halt consumer spending, buy-to-let landlords who have borrowed cheap money and are highly geared will go bankrupt, savers will get decent returns and investments will be confined to ventures that give returns commensurate with the risks. There will be winners and losers but GDP will be hit anytime consumer spending falls off whether Labour or the Tories are in power. More important than how the Tories would fund NHS funding increases in a recession, is how would Labour handle the massive shortfall in the cash they need to cover their pledges in the same recession.
The false sense of predictable Labour outcomes may be attractive, but the dour Tory manifesto I fear is a sign they anticipate difficult times and erred on the side of not making promises to get votes knowing they would otherwise have another 4 years of failed promises.
The majority of people, will vote on an entirely selfish basis of what's in it for me, and on that basis we should vote Labour, and just hope they can deliver. You don't win votes by being honest, both sides know that.
If Labour thought a few weeks ago that it had a chance of gaining power, and were led by someone with experience in leadership rather than campaigning, we would not have seen this manifesto. In truth it was written, in my view, as a propaganda piece to bolster the Corbyn roadshow, not a serious deliverable package. The lack of attention by the leadership to the seemingly unimportant minor matter of costings, is proof enough of that.
Sorry? So why is the Tory manifesto uncosted? Why not criticise them for a manifesto that they haven't the nerve (or the wit) to price? Criticise Labour, but in this case the Tories are even more culpable.
Dippenhall and Greenie please advise something positive from seven years of Tory rule. May called the election on Brexit issues but she won't say wether my German friend Heidi will have to return home, will CAP grants to farmers be maintained, employment laws protected, fishing rights changed and a thousand other issues. Uncosted vague promises. She is winging it.
In my opinion calling the referendum was a positive and I can also say ive never been out of work under Tory government, my industry is doing well and under Corbyns I can only see people being struck off due to the over zealous tax's imposed on business owners, that coupled with the £10 minimum wage concerns me hugely and I predict we'll see a lot of people out of work..
Although I'm not voting Tory so not sure why you've asked me that.
Hello - it's me, I'm back with the same question you refused to answer (three times) this time last year.
You said that EU workers were driving down wages in your industry, which was one of the reasons you were voting out. At the same time you repeated the mantra you have above, that you had never been doing so well as under the Tories. I asked you at the time how that could be, both could not be true. You ignored the question. You now state again that your whole industry is doing well. I ask again, how can both be true?
Hi Adele..
I actually thought I answered your question, as I remember it, so my apologies for not.
I didn't say I've never been doing so well as under the Tories (I've only ever worked under a Tory government) I said I've never been out of work under the Tories (true) and my industry is doing well (also true). I work with people everyday who were badly effected under the labour government and having to work for a ridiculously low wage, they say it's only just getting back to where it should be and they're very distrusting of labour and won't be voting for them.
In my time working in construction I've been undercut private work by teams of Eastern Europeans doing the job for ridiculous prices, countless times. We're not talking by the odd 50/100 quid we're talking a huge undercut.
As well as when working for the firm I subcontract to a team of Romanians came in and undercut me on a price that worked out around £80 a day, this lasted for about 4 months until they were sacked for being absolute shite.
Now these instances doesn't mean my industry isn't doing well, I do well enough, I'd like to take on more private work and eventually work for myself but as I say I get undercut, I still have work sub contracting every day earning decent money for my age.
The point I've always tried to make is that right now the English are being massively undercut by the Romanians/Bulgarians/Lithuanians etc. Then there were talks of the EU opening the doors to the Serbians and Macedonians, then what happens? They get into construction, under cut the Romanians/ Bulgarians/ Lithuanians. They then have to drop their prices and undercut the English workers even more, thus driving wages down in general in the industry. It's quite a vicious circle when you think about it.
Donn't get me wrong it's not all I've them, I've worked with a couple really good Eastern European blokes who charge competitive rates, but even they say we are full and more uncontrolled immigration will be bad for the industry.
Dippenhall and Greenie please advise something positive from seven years of Tory rule. May called the election on Brexit issues but she won't say wether my German friend Heidi will have to return home, will CAP grants to farmers be maintained, employment laws protected, fishing rights changed and a thousand other issues. Uncosted vague promises. She is winging it.
In my opinion calling the referendum was a positive and I can also say ive never been out of work under Tory government, my industry is doing well and under Corbyns I can only see people being struck off due to the over zealous tax's imposed on business owners, that coupled with the £10 minimum wage concerns me hugely and I predict we'll see a lot of people out of work..
Although I'm not voting Tory so not sure why you've asked me that.
Hello - it's me, I'm back with the same question you refused to answer (three times) this time last year.
You said that EU workers were driving down wages in your industry, which was one of the reasons you were voting out. At the same time you repeated the mantra you have above, that you had never been doing so well as under the Tories. I asked you at the time how that could be, both could not be true. You ignored the question. You now state again that your whole industry is doing well. I ask again, how can both be true?
A few points in response to your post about employment. Out of interest @Greenie Junior but over what period are we talking about you never being out of work?
Employment figures under the last Labour government were very, very good until the global economy tanked in 2008 onwards when we started to see the effects of this kicking in. There's also the debate about the nature and quality of the jobs created since 2010.
Your view is naturally coloured by your own experience and that's fair enough to an extent. But what about the 100,000's of ordinary people laid off under Cameron and May since 2010? I refer of course to those jobs that have been cut in the public sector. This seems to be just accepted by many voters who voted for more of the same in 2015 and doubtless will again next week. Then they moan when there's no one to sort out and deliver their parents care package or the time it takes to process the plans for their new extension of course.
When there's rumours of a steel plant closing at a loss of 2000 jobs for example ministers are dispatched, assurances given, blah, blah, blah. It's front page news and everyone agrees 'something' must be done!
Then that same minister will get back to Whitehall and sign off on policies that will lead to many more multiples of those job losses but this time because they are home helps or refuse collectors or librarians or classroom assistants or hospital porters or 100's of other front line roles it's no longer front page news.
Do their jobs not matter to you too?
I think a lot of people (not aiming this at greenie jnr) forget that working in the public sector is a job.
I think people have a bizarre view that as it's a government run service it's not a job, nor a career. Again, not aimed at anyone on here, more to do with how the world of work is painted in this country.
Case in point, most universities and I think university students are caught up in the grad schemes for private companies etc. I remember when I was at Uni 2001 - 2004, I don't remember meeting anyone that said they were off to work for the government
Dippenhall and Greenie please advise something positive from seven years of Tory rule. May called the election on Brexit issues but she won't say wether my German friend Heidi will have to return home, will CAP grants to farmers be maintained, employment laws protected, fishing rights changed and a thousand other issues. Uncosted vague promises. She is winging it.
In my opinion calling the referendum was a positive and I can also say ive never been out of work under Tory government, my industry is doing well and under Corbyns I can only see people being struck off due to the over zealous tax's imposed on business owners, that coupled with the £10 minimum wage concerns me hugely and I predict we'll see a lot of people out of work..
Although I'm not voting Tory so not sure why you've asked me that.
Hello - it's me, I'm back with the same question you refused to answer (three times) this time last year.
You said that EU workers were driving down wages in your industry, which was one of the reasons you were voting out. At the same time you repeated the mantra you have above, that you had never been doing so well as under the Tories. I asked you at the time how that could be, both could not be true. You ignored the question. You now state again that your whole industry is doing well. I ask again, how can both be true?
A few points in response to your post about employment. Out of interest @Greenie Junior but over what period are we talking about you never being out of work?
Employment figures under the last Labour government were very, very good until the global economy tanked in 2008 onwards when we started to see the effects of this kicking in. There's also the debate about the nature and quality of the jobs created since 2010.
Your view is naturally coloured by your own experience and that's fair enough to an extent. But what about the 100,000's of ordinary people laid off under Cameron and May since 2010? I refer of course to those jobs that have been cut in the public sector. This seems to be just accepted by many voters who voted for more of the same in 2015 and doubtless will again next week. Then they moan when there's no one to sort out and deliver their parents care package or the time it takes to process the plans for their new extension of course.
When there's rumours of a steel plant closing at a loss of 2000 jobs for example ministers are dispatched, assurances given, blah, blah, blah. It's front page news and everyone agrees 'something' must be done!
Then that same minister will get back to Whitehall and sign off on policies that will lead to many more multiples of those job losses but this time because they are home helps or refuse collectors or librarians or classroom assistants or hospital porters or 100's of other front line roles it's no longer front page news.
Do their jobs not matter to you too?
I think a lot of people (not aiming this at greenie jnr) forget that working in the public sector is a job.
I think people have a bizarre view that as it's a government run service it's not a job, nor a career. Again, not aimed at anyone on here, more to do with how the world of work is painted in this country.
Case in point, most universities and I think university students are caught up in the grad schemes for private companies etc. I remember when I was at Uni 2001 - 2004, I don't remember meeting anyone that said they were off to work for the government
Absolutely this. I'm aware that people will say, "Well you would say that wouldn't you!" but as as a front line public sector worker for 31 years now I've long since past the point of expecting any personal or wider recognition that our public sector perfoms a vital role in any developed country. If the public want 21st century public services then they should expect to fund them...
So Corbyn has announced he is taking part in the leaders debate, are we about to witness another U-turn by May? Sending a Junior in her stead doesn't exactly portray a strong image, more someone worried about being found out.
Absolutely this. We totally undervalue our public services.
I'm aware that people will say, "Well you would say that wouldn't you!" but as as a front line public sector worker for 31 years now I've long since passed the point of expecting any personal or wider recognition that our public sector perfoms a vital role in any developed country. If the public want 21st century public services though they should expect to fund them.
What we are seeing instead is an ideological drive from the Tories to roll back our public services to levels not seen for decades. And it impacts on us all but particularly the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
They're doing all this under the guise of a failed "austerity" programme with a complicit right wing press that likes nothing better than to portray public sector workers as timeserving shirkers steeling a living.
A Tory vote next week moves me and millions of other public sector workers doing a good job in increasingly difficult circumstances nearer to redundancy.
Comments
Employment figures under the last Labour government were very, very good until the global economy tanked in 2008 onwards when we started to see the effects of this kicking in. There's also the debate about the nature and quality of the jobs created since 2010.
Your view is naturally coloured by your own experience and that's fair enough to an extent. But what about the 100,000's of ordinary people laid off under Cameron and May since 2010? I refer of course to those jobs that have been cut in the public sector. This seems to be just accepted by many voters who voted for more of the same in 2015 and doubtless will again next week. Then they moan when there's no one to sort out and deliver their parents care package or the time it takes to process the plans for their new extension of course.
When there's rumours of a steel plant closing at a loss of 2000 jobs for example ministers are dispatched, assurances given, blah, blah, blah. It's front page news and everyone agrees 'something' must be done!
Then that same minister will get back to Whitehall and sign off on policies that will lead to many more multiples of those job losses but this time because they are home helps or refuse collectors or librarians or classroom assistants or hospital porters or 100's of other front line roles it's no longer front page news.
Do their jobs not matter to you too?
I think people have a bizarre view that as it's a government run service it's not a job, nor a career. Again, not aimed at anyone on here, more to do with how the world of work is painted in this country.
Case in point, most universities and I think university students are caught up in the grad schemes for private companies etc. I remember when I was at Uni 2001 - 2004, I don't remember meeting anyone that said they were off to work for the government
It is front line stuff that is being effected, police response times, class sizes, operations not happening, and if we have a long hot summer probably prison riots in an understaffed service.
The Tories want an aspirational society where people earn enough wedge for private security, private schools, private health and probably the return of the stocks in local high streets.
The bogey man is the EU according to many, which is a handy distraction from considering what kind of society we want to build.
I will become a Czech citizen (dual with continuing UK citizenship) before the Article 50 process ends. Therefore, Michal Barnier represents me as much as David Davies in this process. Would you therefore like to explain to me in what way the EU has an interest in "screwing" the UK. That is a perjorative word, whereas the word "tough" usually ascribed to themselves by May and Davies sounds respectable. Could you explain the difference please?
To assist you, the BBC Europe editor, Katya Adler (a Eurosceptic) has explained on the Today programme that, unlike the UK, the EU is being very transparent about its negotiating agenda. She explains the straightforward reason for this; Michal Barnier has to represent the citizens of 27 countries. He cannot go outside a mandate agreed with all of them. Therefore you can easily find out what it is exactly they want to negotiate, (and what not) in the Article 50 discussion, and ask yourself whether that agenda does not in fact simply represent the legitimate interests of EU citizens (such as me).
I think the negotiation is a charade and a distraction.
They were of course simply wrong.
The EU's democracy might seem cumbersome, might seem remote, but it is nevertheless democratic in as much as ultimately it has to follow the will of the people.
It operates a from of democracy, just as the USA operates a form of democracy.
It saddens me that we are leaving and returning to a system where the familiar unchanging ruling class will like as not hold sway forever.
By leaving the EU we are weakening our personal autonomous sovereignty.
1. The measures imposed on Greece were and are primarily inspired by the IMF. You may be aware that it is not a body of the EU.
2. Your remarks about Germany could be taken as offensive but they certainly show an ignorance of the German national personality. Germans believe in living within their means. Thats why many well off Germans never own their own homes, only have debit (not credit) cards, (which often cannot be used in retail outlets) and only invest very cautiously in non cash investments. They can be a bit inflexible in understanding other cultures, but "living within your means" is a favourite mantra of British conservatives, and not a German neo-fascist sentiment, as your posts rather unpleasantly imply.
3. Germany is a net contributor, while CZ where I live is a net beneficiary. Far from "getting the scraps", the Czech Republic's politicians and bureaucrats have been incompetent at tapping up the available funds, and in too many cases have misappropriated the funds they have received. Far from calling for CZ as a country to be punished or thrown out, the German attitude has been to encourage Czech citizens and businesses to pressure its politicians to get hold of the money and to stop stealing it.
4. I have never met a single Frenchman who believes that "the EU primarily works for Germany". I have met quite a few Germans who are unhappy about the CAP budget and who are frustrated that the French are so intransigent about it.
I believe we have hard times ahead, regardless of Brexit, and I just don't think Labour, as currently set up, have the tools to handle serious economic issues. If Labour is not even prepared to contemplate the difficulties of funding their programme I have little faith in their ability to handle unexpected economic problems.
I think the Tories are aware they are not going to have an easy four years without some serious economic upheavals. Not just because of Brexit, but because we have an unsustainable distorted housing market, because of fantasy land interest rates. The housing market must be corrected in a controlled way or it will self correct in an uncontrolled way. Interest rates will inevitably rise as will inflation and house prices will fall as sure as night follows day. Negative equity will halt consumer spending, buy-to-let landlords who have borrowed cheap money and are highly geared will go bankrupt, savers will get decent returns and investments will be confined to ventures that give returns commensurate with the risks. There will be winners and losers but GDP will be hit anytime consumer spending falls off whether Labour or the Tories are in power. More important than how the Tories would fund NHS funding increases in a recession, is how would Labour handle the massive shortfall in the cash they need to cover their pledges in the same recession.
The false sense of predictable Labour outcomes may be attractive, but the dour Tory manifesto I fear is a sign they anticipate difficult times and erred on the side of not making promises to get votes knowing they would otherwise have another 4 years of failed promises.
The majority of people, will vote on an entirely selfish basis of what's in it for me, and on that basis we should vote Labour, and just hope they can deliver. You don't win votes by being honest, both sides know that.
If Labour thought a few weeks ago that it had a chance of gaining power, and were led by someone with experience in leadership rather than campaigning, we would not have seen this manifesto. In truth it was written, in my view, as a propaganda piece to bolster the Corbyn roadshow, not a serious deliverable package. The lack of attention by the leadership to the seemingly unimportant minor matter of costings, is proof enough of that.
It was an excellent series of posts by dippenhall but there were a couple of points I would pick up on. Sweden is not a like for like, it is heavily unionised. Sweden does not have a minimum wage and this would probably raise the mean disposable income.
Secondly it wouldn't be Corbyn and Abbott spending the money on capital investment. They have repeatedly stated they would set up a new national investment bank similar to the Bank of England. That would be the second time a labour government would have set up a financial institution to be independent of government to stop it being used as a political tool. Dippenhall clearly doesn't trust Labour but it is a little disengenous to suggest they will hold the purse strings, but that has been the entire Tory campaign.
On another line, I saw the below quote in Dippenhall's otherwise excellent post:
"If Labour is not even prepared to contemplate the difficulties of funding their programme I have little faith in their ability to handle unexpected economic problems."
How the hell would any of us know what they are contemplating in private? Why would anybody assume they aren't thinking about how funding would work just because they're not stupid enough to commit political suicide by coming out and saying they don't know where all the money is coming from. Yet we're supposed to have faith in the Tories who have inflicted 7 years of a provably unsuccessful fiscal policy (good luck finding a single reputable economist who things austerity could ever work) on the country, won't cost any policies or discuss where the few numbers they have mentioned are going to come from?
In principle at least, there is not a binary choice when it comes to funding the increase in NHS budget which all parties agree is necessary.
The Lib Dems propose a 1% increase in basic tax rates specifically to pay for it.
And another £100 to have it read.
I actually thought I answered your question, as I remember it, so my apologies for not.
I didn't say I've never been doing so well as under the Tories (I've only ever worked under a Tory government) I said I've never been out of work under the Tories (true) and my industry is doing well (also true). I work with people everyday who were badly effected under the labour government and having to work for a ridiculously low wage, they say it's only just getting back to where it should be and they're very distrusting of labour and won't be voting for them.
In my time working in construction I've been undercut private work by teams of Eastern Europeans doing the job for ridiculous prices, countless times. We're not talking by the odd 50/100 quid we're talking a huge undercut.
As well as when working for the firm I subcontract to a team of Romanians came in and undercut me on a price that worked out around £80 a day, this lasted for about 4 months until they were sacked for being absolute shite.
Now these instances doesn't mean my industry isn't doing well, I do well enough, I'd like to take on more private work and eventually work for myself but as I say I get undercut, I still have work sub contracting every day earning decent money for my age.
The point I've always tried to make is that right now the English are being massively undercut by the Romanians/Bulgarians/Lithuanians etc. Then there were talks of the EU opening the doors to the Serbians and Macedonians, then what happens? They get into construction, under cut the Romanians/ Bulgarians/ Lithuanians. They then have to drop their prices and undercut the English workers even more, thus driving wages down in general in the industry. It's quite a vicious circle when you think about it.
Donn't get me wrong it's not all I've them, I've worked with a couple really good Eastern European blokes who charge competitive rates, but even they say we are full and more uncontrolled immigration will be bad for the industry.
Anyhow I hope the answer was worth the wait!
Absolutely this. We totally undervalue our public services.
I'm aware that people will say, "Well you would say that wouldn't you!" but as as a front line public sector worker for 31 years now I've long since passed the point of expecting any personal or wider recognition that our public sector perfoms a vital role in any developed country. If the public want 21st century public services though they should expect to fund them.
What we are seeing instead is an ideological drive from the Tories to roll back our public services to levels not seen for decades. And it impacts on us all but particularly the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
They're doing all this under the guise of a failed "austerity" programme with a complicit right wing press that likes nothing better than to portray public sector workers as timeserving shirkers steeling a living.
A Tory vote next week moves me and millions of other public sector workers doing a good job in increasingly difficult circumstances nearer to redundancy.