Politics, politics, politics

[milo]

It'll be driven by necessity. Cutting the cord from globalisation forces us to become strategic with our economy.

There have been some signs of it happening already - the government's industrial strategy is the right idea, if with slightly misplaced priorities. The extension of training of homegrown health professional has already started too (commissioning new medical schools etc.).

You seem to have missed who is driving Brexit and what their aims are. Clue, they are very wealthy and don't like paying tax.

The industrial strategy and training more doctors and nurses can both be done within the EU.

Brexit will leave the country significantly poorer for decades, this will hit the poor hardest. Already under funded public services will continue to be underfunded whilst also having to battle further staffing shortages caused by a drop in EU migration.

 

[Gutter Boy]

@Gutter Boy's post raises an interesting question though. The protectionist Brexiters and the disaster capitalist Brexiters aims from Brexit are diametrically opposed. At what point will their alliance break?

I'm not sure the Guardian's big bogey men really actually exist. Liam Fox and 6 policy wonks in Legatum doesn't make much of a force. May, Corbyn, the majority of the cabinet and the shadow cabinet and 17.5 million Tory and Labour voters are nearly all on the protectionist end.

 

[milo]

I'm not sure the Guardian's big bogey men really actually exist. Liam Fox and 6 policy wonks in Legatum doesn't make much of a force. May, Corbyn, the majority of the cabinet and the shadow cabinet and 17.5 million Tory and Labour voters are nearly all on the protectionist end.

I agree that the majority of Brexit voters are protectionists, I also agree that May is. Of the Brexiters in the Cabinet, there are more disaster capitalists (Gove, Johnson, Davies, Fox...) than protectionists and the financial muscle behind it also supports this. Whatever way you look at it, there is an internal argument here that remains unresolved.

 

[Baleforce]

We can start now.

There are two ways to become more prosperous - make more money, or cut your costs. Neo-liberalism drives us towards the former. But the latter would be better for everyone.

The big recurring costs for people are generally housing, amenity bills and transport. Managing immigration to decrease the net population will shift the supply-demand balance in housing and start prices falling. Solar panels and household batteries, allowing people to go off-grid, will end amenity bills and significantly cut transport costs. Then people only need money for food and luxury goods.

but how do we get from here to there without breaking everything?

it's not a solution if the means to achieve it are not defined, people can't install solar panels and household batteries unless they own a home (or land) to install them on

 

[Gutter Boy]

You seem to have missed who is driving Brexit and what their aims are. Clue, they are very wealthy and don't like paying tax.

The industrial strategy and training more doctors and nurses can both be done within the EU.

Brexit will leave the country significantly poorer for decades, this will hit the poor hardest. Already under funded public services will continue to be underfunded whilst also having to battle further staffing shortages caused by a drop in EU migration.

Brexit is being driven by those who are sick of nearly 40 years of Reaganomics. It united the industrial working classes and middle/shire England against the London finance sector. It's a powerful new alliance.

Public services aren't underfunded per se, they are just incentivsed wrong. E.g. spend health money on preventative checks and proactive interventions, not inflated drug costs and PPPs to serve big corporations.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I agree that the majority of Brexit voters are protectionists, I also agree that May is. Of the Brexiters in the Cabinet, there are more disaster capitalists (Gove, Johnson, Davies, Fox...) than protectionists and the financial muscle behind it also supports this. Whatever way you look at it, there is an internal argument here that remains unresolved.

I think Davies is reasonably protectionist. He's quite a typical shire leaver, along the lines of most of his constituency and rural/rich North and East Yorkshire

 

[Gutter Boy]

but how do we get from here to there without breaking everything?

it's not a solution if the means to achieve it are not defined, people can't install solar panels and household batteries unless they own a home (or land) to install them on

I'd do it through tax incentives. E.g. no stamp duty on houses sold with solar panels and battery setup, and/or lower council tax banding.

IIRC 2/3s of the population own their own home (i think its roughly 1/3 fully own, 1/3 mortgaged, 1/3 rent)

 

[milo]

Brexit is being driven by those who are sick of nearly 40 years of Reaganomics. It united the industrial working classes and middle/shire England against the London finance sector. It's a powerful new alliance.

Public services aren't underfunded per se, they are just incentivsed wrong. E.g. spend health money on preventative checks and proactive interventions, not inflated drug costs and PPPs to serve big corporations.

I agree that is one of the main reasons behind support for Brexit. I fear that those supporters are going to feel the worst impacts as manufacturing in the UK will become far less cost effective and foreign investment in this will decline. I also think it unlikely that future governments will be able to match current EU funding to poorer parts of the UK. That is before we get to the damage it will do to agriculture.

By seeking to run down the London services sectors you are actively looking to damage the most productive parts of our economy. This isn't just big finance but a whole host of small and medium sized companies across a number of sectors that rely on the EU for sales and skilled labour. These are not jobs that will be replaced by UK workers in time, they are companies that will relocate.

We should be looking at ways of making the rest of the UK as productive as London, not trashing one of our successes.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I agree that is one of the main reasons behind support for Brexit. I fear that those supporters are going to feel the worst impacts as manufacturing in the UK will become far less cost effective and foreign investment in this will decline. I also think it unlikely that future governments will be able to match current EU funding to poorer parts of the UK. That is before we get to the damage it will do to agriculture.

By seeking to run down the London services sectors you are actively looking to damage the most productive parts of our economy. This isn't just big finance but a whole host of small and medium sized companies across a number of sectors that rely on the EU for sales and skilled labour. These are not jobs that will be replaced by UK workers in time, they are companies that will relocate.

We should be looking at ways of making the rest of the UK as productive as London, not trashing one of our successes.

Financial services and an industrial strategy actively work against each other. They are a net sum game. Financial services profits from uncertainty and risk. Buying up companies, asset stripping and disposing of them. Whereas an industrial strategy focuses on needs and long-term health and sustainability. Financial services is only 11% of the economy, but it actively harms the other 89%.

 

[milo]

Financial services and an industrial strategy actively work against each other. They are a net sum game. Financial services profits from uncertainty and risk. Buying up companies, asset stripping and disposing of them. Whereas an industrial strategy focuses on needs and long-term health and sustainability. Financial services is only 11% of the economy, but it actively harms the other 89%.

I am talking about all services, not just financial. The service sector accounts for a 80% of the economy and a large proportion of its exports are to the EU. There is little hope of maintaining comparable access to the single market for services through anything other than continuedvSM membership.

I don't think that you understand what the financial service sector comprises of or what much of it does. It is not in conflict with an industrial strategy.

 

[scaramanga]

Less trade will make us all poorer.

And lower input costs will make us more profitable and make goods cheaper.

 

[scaramanga]

I am talking about all services, not just financial. The service sector accounts for a 80% of the economy and a large proportion of its exports are to the EU. There is little hope of maintaining comparable access to the single market for services through anything other than continuedvSM membership.

I don't think that you understand what the financial service sector comprises of or what much of it does. It is not in conflict with an industrial strategy.

That's a clever way of stating the figures to make them sound scary (not suggesting you did that, those you're quoting probably did).

12% of our economy is goods and services exported to the EU, and that's if we assume the Rotterdam Effect is 0 (and it isn't). So even if the EU somehow either would or could (it won't and can't) put a stop to all UK imports, the maximum hit on our exports would be 12% of the economy, less the increase in overseas exports. Of course the actual reduction will be a lot less because (as influential people at both Lloyds and NatWest have told me) they will just spend a few £m on setting up an office in the EU and continue business as usual from the UK. Nobody high up wants to move and nobody is going to.

Profits (and therefore tax returns) would be increased directly by the reduction in import costs, as would living costs. The money the government spends would go much further without EU regulation and trade barriers too.

For the 85% of UK businesses who have no dealings whatsoever with the EU, profitability would take a huge jump if needless EU regulations were removed. My business would improve profitability by at least 5% of turnover overnight just on current UK sales of current UK products. That ignores being able to compete globally again with the US and the Middle East and the increase in domestic sales that removal of irrelevant and needless regulation would create.

On top of that, reducing corporation tax to compete with the EU would attract business from all over - most businesses would happily take the trade barriers the EU might put up in return for lower taxation and regulation.

Plus we get our £9B back every year - £13B if we stop tinkling it all away on farmers.

 

[scaramanga]

I'd do it through tax incentives. E.g. no stamp duty on houses sold with solar panels and battery setup, and/or lower council tax banding.

IIRC 2/3s of the population own their own home (i think its roughly 1/3 fully own, 1/3 mortgaged, 1/3 rent)

That works. When do we get the time machine that takes us forward 30 years to the point where that technology is viable?

 

[Gutter Boy]

That works. When do we get the time machine that takes us forward 30 years to the point where that technology is viable?

A plane ticket to Uruguay would do (95% of their electricity is renewables; and with no geothermal like places like Norway).

The solar panels are getting just about good enough. The batteries are more the problem though. We do need a big leap on from lithium ion to achieve 100% renewables by 2030. In the interim though, many more local solar panels feeding the grid would be a big step in the right direction

 

[Rorschach]

The numbers don't fully stack up at the moment for solar panels on a typical family house. There just isn't enough roof space on a semi-D to fully supply the typical UK family needs. Batteries don't really come into the picture just yet because of their huge price, as you say, but mostly as there is rarely excess power to dump into them if you schedule your power hungry tasks at the right time i.e. during the day. The panel efficiency needs to improve a lot, and it is improving slowly, to make it truly viable.

 

[Baleforce]

The numbers don't fully stack up at the moment for solar panels on a typical family house. There just isn't enough roof space on a semi-D to fully supply the typical UK family needs. Batteries don't really come into the picture just yet because of their huge price, as you say, but mostly as there is rarely excess power to dump into them if you schedule your power hungry tasks at the right time i.e. during the day. The panel efficiency needs to improve a lot, and it is improving slowly, to make it truly viable.

and...

there are a lot of people not living in typical family houses, you don’t get many panels on top of your average high rise, densely populated areas have a higher need than available sun lit space can provide

if solar was financially viable someone would have monetised it by now

 

[Rorschach]

and...

there are a lot of people not living in typical family houses, you don’t get many panels on top of your average high rise, densely populated areas have a higher need than available sun lit space can provide

if solar was financially viable someone would have monetised it by now

Well it does work to a degree for family homes (not high rises as you say) but the ROI is long term and you still need grid top-up. Better than nothing though. Domestic installations will help meet renewables targets but it is supplying the grid where the real difference will be made. You gotta work with what you have and in the UK it's more wind power than solar that is financially viable. Maybe when the solar tech improves that will shift the momentum that way. For now commercial wind farms work and pay for themselves (microturbines don't incidentally and never will).


Edit: This is the future IMO -> https://inhabitat.com/new-1-km-solar-expressway-opens-in-jinan-china/

 

[milo]

And lower input costs will make us more profitable and make goods cheaper.

For many input costs won't be lower because they import materials and many other means of reducing costs are not compatible with the regulatory alignment commitment.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Well it does work to a degree for family homes (not high rises as you say) but the ROI is long term and you still need grid top-up. Better than nothing though. Domestic installations will help meet renewables targets but it is supplying the grid where the real difference will be made. You gotta work with what you have and in the UK it's more wind power than solar that is financially viable. Maybe when the solar tech improves that will shift the momentum that way. For now commercial wind farms work and pay for themselves (microturbines don't incidentally and never will).

I wonder if there is a way to incentivise "real estate" for solar panels?

For example, how many businesses - warehouses, factories - have enormous amounts of square footage suitable for panels? Perhaps council tax breaks or something like that to use the space could be viable?

Edit: This is the future IMO -> https://inhabitat.com/new-1-km-solar-expressway-opens-in-jinan-china/

I absolutely love this, its brilliant. Ive seen roof tiles (look just like clay tiles) that are solar panels as well, even more square footage as it covers the whole roof, and totally discreet as well.

 

[scaramanga]

For many input costs won't be lower because they import materials and many other means of reducing costs are not compatible with the regulatory alignment commitment.

Removing tariffs on non-EU goods will reduce import costs by itself