• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

SpurMeUp said:
With a 20b a month government deficit, and huge borrowing, I can't see lower taxes, maybe the opposite. In fact we have already seen various tax increases post Brexit.

The theory and the reality are not matching. You're still living in a fantasy. Brexit has meant higher not lower taxes, and with less tax revenue with less exports, some financial jobs going abroad and a smaller economy (as predicted by the government) you can't square the circle. To maintain our national services, with less tax revenue coming in, we have to pay more - not less - tax.

So in short, you are deluded trying to argue that Brexit has not affected inflation, despite increased trade costs and recruitment costs, and by your own account you've seen no Brexit benefit. Instead, you're drawn quoting the latest Brexit fantasy a "sunshine date". Can you see why people might think you're a smidgen deluded?
Click to expand...
COVID has meant higher taxes.

If we shut down the country when people get a bit ill then it's going to cost a fortune - over £400bn is a number regularly estimated. If you spend everything and produce nothing, you're going to be in a mess.

Obviously spending will have to be reduced in line with reduced taxes - it's just that nobody in the govt has the testicular fortitude to say that, let alone do it. They're all too busy trying to woo lifetime Labour voters in brickhole constituencies up north that they have no hope of attracting.
 
scaramanga said:
COVID has meant higher taxes.

If we shut down the country when people get a bit ill then it's going to cost a fortune - over £400bn is a number regularly estimated. If you spend everything and produce nothing, you're going to be in a mess.

Obviously spending will have to be reduced in line with reduced taxes - it's just that nobody in the govt has the testicular fortitude to say that, let alone do it. They're all too busy trying to woo lifetime Labour voters in brickhole constituencies up north that they have no hope of attracting.
Click to expand...

The best thing you said was "testicular fortitude" ! Although I do agree our government spends far too much. 'We' spend, our government spends 4-5b a year of our money on management consultants. Mainly so that people in government don't have to be accountable. "It was their idea, don't blame me"

However, there is quite a bit of logic and measures that show the Brexit costs. The OBR for example states
  • 4% less productivity in the UK as a consequence.
  • 15% lower trade between the UK and EU.
  • Higher net migration (not less!).
  • No better trade deals, nothing meaningful yet anyway.

  • The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information).
  • Both exports and imports will be around 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU. The size of this adjustment is calibrated to match the average estimate of a number of external studies that considered the impact of leaving the EU on the volume of UK-EU trade (see our November 2016 EFO for more information). Impacts on export and import growth are similar, therefore downward revisions to gross trade flows are broadly neutral in their effect on the current account over the medium term. Box 2.5 of our October 2021 EFO and Box 2.6 of our March 2022 EFO provide initial assessments of this assumption.
  • New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment).
  • We had assumed that the Government’s new post-Brexit migration regime would reduce net inward migration to the UK (see Box 2.4 of our March 2020 EFO). But in our November 2022 and March 2023 forecasts we revised up our projections for net migration to reflect evidence of sustained strength in inward migration since the post-Brexit migration regime was introduced. We now assume net migration settles at 245,000 a year in the medium term (based on the ONS 2020-based interim migration projection). This compares to 129,000 in that year in our March 2022 forecast (based on the 2018-based ONS zero net EU migration variant).
 
scaramanga said:
Assuming you're correct and that it's a significant difference (you're not and it's not, but let's go with it) then that inflation happened years ago. Inflation is a measure against this time last year - the inflation rate would have fallen through the floor one year and a day after Brexit.
Click to expand...
The changes were only fully implemented from July 2021. We are now feeling the compound effect of those constraints which the government has been completely ineffectual at mitigating.

and they are only going to get worse as new checks on trade are about to be introduced.

Cutting ourselves off from our local and by far the biggest trading partner we’ve ever had, what a top notch idea!
 
Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
The changes were only fully implemented from July 2021. We are now feeling the compound effect of those constraints which the government has been completely ineffectual at mitigating.

and they are only going to get worse as new checks on trade are about to be introduced.

Cutting ourselves off from our local and by far the biggest trading partner we’ve ever had, what a top notch idea!
Click to expand...
So inflation would have fallen in July 22.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I love it. British people need to learn to stand up to our masters better. Though i agree they need a bit more careful targeting of just state and big business targets
Click to expand...
Well yeah but protesting is illegal now in the UK, more or less. It is almost like the proto-facist party in power thought that might happen some day and decided to take that option off the table.
 
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city said:
Jeez just read this in a BBC article.....

But it is now notably cheaper for Greece (3.99%) to borrow over 10 years than Britain (4.67%).
Click to expand...

Crazy.

And then this this morning, showing how mad our Brexit backing political classes are:


We need more EU workers, admits leading Tory Brexiter
George Eustice, the former environment secretary, is calling for a reciprocal visa scheme so that under-35s can work across the EU and Britain


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ustice-visas-young-eu-workers-labour-shortage
 
SpurMeUp said:
Crazy.

And then this this morning, showing how mad our Brexit backing political classes are:


We need more EU workers, admits leading Tory Brexiter
George Eustice, the former environment secretary, is calling for a reciprocal visa scheme so that under-35s can work across the EU and Britain


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ustice-visas-young-eu-workers-labour-shortage
Click to expand...
....and Eustice who started his political career as a member of Ukip :D:D

Sniffing around for the reasons for sticky inflation...it stands to reason if you don't have seasonal pickers you'll almost certainly be paying a higher wage for someone else to pick it, and try and pass on that increased input cost. Furthermore if you haven't got the labour to pick everything, you'll sell what you can pick at a higher price to try and make ends meet.

Not to mention the food wastage of non picked/harvested food. (Add that to the rotting in lorries perishable food at the ports)

I'm sure the seasonal pickers arrangement suited everyone, much like the Brits who would swan off for bar and club work in the summer or ski resorts in the winter.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
....and Eustice who started his political career as a member of Ukip :D:D

Sniffing around for the reasons for sticky inflation...it stands to reason if you don't have seasonal pickers you'll almost certainly be paying a higher wage for someone else to pick it, and try and pass on that increased input cost. Furthermore if you haven't got the labour to pick everything, you'll sell what you can pick at a higher price to try and make ends meet.

Not to mention the food wastage of non picked/harvested food. (Add that to the rotting in lorries perishable food at the ports)

I'm sure the seasonal pickers arrangement suited everyone, much like the Brits who would swan off for bar and club work in the summer or ski resorts in the winter.
Click to expand...
Of course we could just stop increasing the minimum wage, drop it to something sensible or get rid of the whole preposterous concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back