Starmer’s chronicles

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

FFS, Brexit has F’All to do with the choices his government has made.

The country is 6% poorer but still needs to fund its services. So unless you cut those services, the choice is higher taxes or higher borrowing. To pretend it has no bearing on decisions chancellors make is flawed.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

I'm going to start carrying a lot more cash, I feel there may well be a need for it in the future . . *nudge wink etc* no receipts required, cheers

always ask the question- and how much for cash

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The country is 6% poorer but still needs to fund its services.

No it doesn’t, and that’s the whole point. There are many “services” we should not be paying for.

So unless you cut those services

which is exactly what we should be doing.

the choice is higher taxes or higher borrowing.

Exactly, it is a choice, which is what I said at the start. Thank you as you have just made my argument brilliantly.

Originally Posted by Pierre

No it doesn’t, and that’s the whole point. There are many “services” we should not be paying for.

Which services are you referring to ?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

Which services are you referring to ?

Certain parts of Welfare,

Parts of the NHS

For a start.

Reforming just those two areas could save billions.

Originally Posted by Mr K

6 PMs since the Brexit vote, in 9 years. The country has been in a downward chaotic spiral since.

Maybe it isn't the politicians ( of any parties ) fault. All of them has failed to polish a t***d, as its impossible.

https://archive.ph/2025.11.26-150646...rope-p3mhqd66f

We Brexiteers must acknowledge the costs of leaving Europe

All human beings are prone to what is known as “motivated reasoning”. We interpret new information through the lens of our existing biases, always looking to justify the conclusions we already hold. This is especially true when it comes to contentious political choices. We don’t like to admit that a policy or government that we have endorsed has had harmful consequences.

Yet the pursuit of truth demands we try to overcome such cognitive biases. I was part of the small band of Economists for Brexit. We argued, in good faith, that disentangling ourselves from the EU would unlock long-term economic potential via more policy freedom. Nine years on, we cannot pretend things have gone well so far.

A new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Nicholas Bloom and co-authors reviews both macroeconomic and microeconomic data. It suggests that UK GDP per person is 6 to 8 per cent lower today than if we had remained. Business investment is down 15 per cent; employment and productivity by 3 to 4 per cent each. Those magnitudes are no minor frictional cost of new trade arrangements. They signify a strong headwind to Britain’s growth this past decade…

… The microeconomic, firm-level data is crystal clear that Brexit has had a significant, depressive impact. The authors use the Bank of England’s decision-maker panel — about 7,000 firms surveyed — to show that the more EU-exposed a company was, the more likely it cut investment and slowed hiring after the referendum. By 2023, average business investment was 12 per cent lower than otherwise. Productivity within firms was 3 to 4 per cent weaker.

Roughly half of firms listed Brexit as a top source of uncertainty for years after the vote. Yes, remainer foot-dragging in parliament exacerbated this uncertainty. But wherever you ascribe blame, managers devoted hours each week to planning for new post-Brexit customs arrangements, regulation and precautionary stockpiles. This displacement activity weakened innovation, delayed investment and distracted managers from core business.

Such evidence cannot be dismissed as Project Fear. It is data. Brexit was a constitutional choice about where laws and regulations were made. My judgment was that Britain’s messy parliamentary democracy would be more effective in error-correcting than Brussels’ bureaucracy, in the long run. But thus far, we have endured Brexit’s downsides, through new trade frictions and protracted uncertainty, with any upsides paling in comparison.

Brexit did not cause Britain’s growth malaise, but it undoubtedly deepened it.
Nor did it create our fiscal woes, although it worsened them too. Denial about this helps no one. Indeed, a successful sovereign economic policy demands taking responsibility and facing the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

[Carth]

Brexit . . again . . after all these years


No mention of Covid causing huge disruption - coincidentally at the same time as Brexit.

Originally Posted by Carth

Brexit . . again . . after all these years


No mention of Covid causing huge disruption - coincidentally at the same time as Brexit.

It’s an avid Brexiteer who’s written the article…

Ryan Bourne is an economist based at the Cato Institute in Washington DC. He is the author of the book Economics in One Virus and the newsletter The War on Prices. Bourne was previously head of economic research at the Centre for Policy Studies and head of public policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs in Westminster, after a short stint in economic consultancy. He has extensive broadcast experience, appearing on BBC News, Sky News, CNBC, and Fox Business. His Times columns focus overwhelmingly on the economics of public policies and the abuse of economic reasoning in politics.

Re COVID - from the article…

Much of the GDP divergence also kicks in around mid-2020, right as Covid-19 hit. Untangling pandemic chaos from the Brexit fallout is tricky, especially with transition rules still in place. And UK-specific political volatility that further depressed growth arguably did not start with Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour leadership spooked business from 2015 to 2019; the mini-budget wrecked confidence later. Neither was strictly Brexit’s fault.

But let’s not kid ourselves. The simple facts show the UK has grown more slowly than Italy, France and Japan too since 2016, despite their legion problems. Only Germany and Canada have fared worse than us in the G7. A raft of techniques that average other countries show us lagging. And other EU countries suffered more trade friction and a growth headwind from our exit, tempering any Brexit cost from these comparisons.

The microeconomic, firm-level data is crystal clear that Brexit has had a significant, depressive impact.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Certain parts of Welfare,

Parts of the NHS

Thats just as vague as before, which parts ?

[Sephiroth]

So, it comes down to the merits of sovereignty over economics. A tricky one.

I prefer the sovereignty with a competent government. But even worse would be back in the EU with an incompetent government.

Shit creek nix paddle.

[Carth]

I'm starting to prefer N. Korea to be honest.

Unluckily for everyone involved, due to being a poor pensioner I can't afford to move . . .

[papa smurf]

Politics latest: Rachel Reeves accused of misleading voters over reason for tax rises
Number 10 has denied accusations that the chancellor misrepresented the existence of a black hole in the public finances.


Badenoch says Reeves 'lied to the public for months to justify tax hikes'
The leader of the Conservative Party has now commented, following suggestions that Rachel Reeves "deliberately misled" the public about the state of the UK economy.

The chancellor was informed by the OBR that the deficit - what is often termed the fiscal black hole - was going to be largely offset by "increases in real wages and inflation" as early as September.

By the end of October, the Treasury watchdog had told Reeves the government would actually be running a surplus - not a deficit.

But the chancellor continued to warn of dire economic circumstances that meant she'd be left with no choice but to hike taxes.

She then delivered a budget hiking taxes by £26bn on Wednesday.



this shower isn't fit to run a bath

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-...arage-12593360

[Carth]

As I don't follow the science surrounding the events leading to the formation and consequent characteristics of black holes, I now have the question . . do they naturally shrink/expand in line with cosmic influences?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

As I don't follow the science surrounding the events leading to the formation and consequent characteristics of black holes, I now have the question . . do they naturally shrink/expand in line with cosmic influences?

the size of a black hole of this type is proportionate to the amount of bull shyte they shovel into it

[Carth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

the size of a black hole of this type is proportionate to the amount of bull shyte they shovel into it

aah right.

Only I was wondering, with the large amount of data involved (provided by financial experts no less), to be unsure whether the aforementioned black hole is contracting, expanding, or even in existence, seems pretty damn cosmic to me.