RayC

I understand your reaction. Problem is if they do reopen the bridge and one of the climbers falls off then they might seriously injure some poor unfortunate below.

It's obviously hypothetical to question whether Labour's handling of the Covid crisis would have made matters worse but imo Labour can be criticised now for a lack of detail in their economic strategy. (Although in the circumstances, this is perfectly understandable: Why leave yourself open to attack when your opposition is constantly shooting themselves in the foot?) However, it's highly unlikely that the infighting in the Tory party will resolve itself before the next election, so if you vote Tory what will you get? Ideological libertarians (the ERG), 'Austerity' economics (Hunt) or 'Traditional' Toryism (Wallace)? Imo a vote for the Tories will be a vote for more chaos and far from the least-worst option.

Help please. I am trying to figure out whether the UK has a government masquerading as a Whirling Dervish troop, or a Whirling Dervish troop masquerading as a government ???? https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-63278993

If the statements cannot be substantiated then it is opinion, not fact. Does that mean it is without value? Not in my opinion!

Neither. My post was clear. I didn't - and still don't - understand what you mean. I asked you to clarify it. You are apparently unable and/or unwilling to do so. Obviously that's up to you. Great. Just to be obviously clear. You agree that the result of the referendum adversely affected sterling? Why does this matter? "Brexit" is a generic term. The result of the referendum in June 2016 had immediate negative economic effects e.g. the decline in sterling. The UK's official departure from the EU in January 2019 had additional negative effects e.g. increased cost to businesses due to the introduction of border controls/ custom formalities. The point is that "Brexit" - irrespective of whether June 2016 or January 2019 is taken as the starting point - has adversely affected the UK economy.

And I offered a counter example based on my experience. All of which is ancedotal and proves nothing. So let's return to my original assertion and challenge to you: Some sectors of the UK labour market have been adversely affected by the result of the Brexit referendum. Do you accept this? If not, please point out the flaws in the methodology and/or findings of the studies supporting this assertion. Ancedotal evidence doesn't pass muster

B*"'er!!! I've been waiting ages for numbers 12 and 25????

I am completely baffled. My interpretation of your line of argument is, Brexit has happened therefore Brexit cannot be a contributory factor in any subsequent events? Clearly this is nonsensical - and not what you meant - so can you please clarify.

You are splitting hairs. I don't see how I can nullify your experience any more than you can nullify mine, or why you should find my example 'strange'? I also don't understand why you wish to focus on this ancedotal evidence rather than address the wider issue? Nevertheless, to avoid a charge that I am avoiding your point, here goes. Are you suggesting that the uncertainty - and the negative effects on the lives of Brits living in the EU in 2016 - caused by the result of the referendum is irrelevant? Are the effects of events which take place within the UK's physical borders the only factors that should be taken into consideration? Wrt the specific example I quoted about job offers to EU nationals being withdrawn. I assume that the UK based companies in question had to go to the time, trouble and expense of restarting the recruitment process. Do I know this for a fact? No. Does that negate my assertion that the result of the Brexit referendum has had negative economic effects on the UK since June 2016? No.

Once again, the onus is on you to disprove the methodology and/or findings of the reports that suggest that Brexit has had negative economic effects. Whether it was speculation or market doubts about the long-term prospects of the UK economy is immaterial. As you admit, sterling was adversely affected by the result of the referendum therefore, by definition, Brexit was the reason for the reaction. My own experience is the opposite. I worked in Belgium until 2018. Not only was my own situation - and the vast majority of Brits I knew - adversely affected by the referendum result, so too were many EU nationals, many of whom had job offers withdrawn. Moreover, the uncertainty about our status during negotiations - where both sides acted appallingly - not only affected us as individuals, but also had an adverse effect on business confidence. However, our respective experience is no more than anecdotal evidence. The fact remains - as I have restated throughout - that research has indicated that Brexit has had a negative effect on the UK economy.

I'm not accusing you of anything. Yes, the effects of Brexit are difficult to quantify and other issues complicate matters but - to repeat myself - many reports indicate that Brexit has already had a negative economic effect on the UK. If you disagree, then you should point out the flaws in these reports' methodologies and/or findings. It did It did It did It did It has It has ........ Hasn't Brexit adversely affected the value of sterling? Hasn't Brexit increased the UK inflation rate? Hasn't Brexit involved unnecessary government spending? Hasn't Brexit meant increased UK government spending in some sectors e.g. farming? Hasn't Brexit adversely affected the ability of UK companies and individuals to do business in the EU? Hasn't Brexit adversely affected the labour market in some sectors of the UK economy? Etc. Etc.

The negative economic effects of the war in Ukraine, Covid restrictions and Brexit are completely separate issues and can be analysed independently. The negative economic effects of Brexit have been happening since the UK voted to leave in 2016 as evidenced by the reports in the link which I posted: The lack of any reports detailing the economic benefits of Brexit since 2016 is also telling. Whenever a Brexiter is challenged about the positive economic effects of Brexit, the answer is almost invariably that these benefits will be seen at some (undefined) point in the future. There is no evidence to support this claim. In this context, Covid - and latterly the war in Ukraine - are simply convenient events to hide behind.

To misquote Beryl from Bristol: "Oh no, not another 10 days of mourning".

No need for Placeholder and myself to bother, someone got there before us. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/?_sft_theme=the-economics-of-brexit Can't claim to have read most of the reports but those I have browsed paint a negative picture. I look forward to you presenting your objections to the methodology and/or findings in due course. In the meantime, perhaps you could list the economic benefits we have gained from Brexit or are they all due 'mañana'?

Given that the rest of the world is experiencing the effects of Covid - and reacted in the same way i.e. by shutting down their economies - and the Ukraine war, why should that explain the relative underperformance of the UK? (The UK came out of lockdown quicker than most, and is less exposed to the effects of the war than the EU).

If by that you mean that all currencies are suffering when measured against the $US then yes, agreed. The value of the £ vis-a-vis those currencies is about the same as it was a month ago. However, none of those nations' governments and/or central banks have had to reverse their stated fiscal and monetary policies to prop up the value of their currencies over the past month. Over the longer term (post Brexit), the UK is lagging behind most of its' competitors (esp. the EU) whatever measure is used e.g. growth, value of currency, inflation, etc.

I don't think anyone is denying that the aftermath of Covid is having a negative effect on the world economy. The question is 'How are the respective governments dealing with the problem?'. In the UK's case, the market's answer is 'Badly'.

All economies were negatively affected by the fallout from Covid, so that doesn't explain the current situation. A lack of confidence in the UK government's ability to deal with the problems is the main reason for the market reaction. Who can blame them? 3 PMs in just over 3 years and 4 Chancellors inside 12 months hardly suggests a successful and stable administration. Throw the negative effects of Brexit coming home to roost into the mix and I'd suggest that the market reaction is quite rational for once.

All crows are black A crow is a bird Therefore, all birds are crows Anyone spot the flaw in this argument?

(Spoiler alert) The music at the end was also great. Couldn't bring myself to watch the 44 mins preceding the wedding.

Just listened to a FT podcast 'Paynes Politics'. In it, George Parker - FT political editor - says, 'One of the great ironies is that this government of ideological free-marketers is being brought down by the market".

One of the problems of a democratic system is that the majority sometimes vote for something which is not in their best interests. Brexit is a prime example. If Iraq is put aside - admittedly this is an enormous issue to simply disregard - then imo the 'New Labour' years weren't too bad. Ultimately a disappointment but maybe expectations were set too high. One thing is certain. The current debacle would not have occurred on Alister Campbell's watch. It's all very well sacking Kwarteng, but the advisors in Downing Street should be out on the ear unless their advice is being disregarded. In which case, if they had any self respect, they would resign. Starmer has said little of real consequence and Labour's policies are largely deliberately vague. At some point, they will have to put some flesh on the bones, but in the meantime it is politically shrewd of them to simply sit back and watch the Tories implode and become unelectable. Imo Labour are unlikely to offer any overly radical policies. The decision to choose between an untried opposition and a proven incompetent incumbent government is a relatively easy one for me to make. No doubt a rhetorical question but I'll answer it anyway: The 'New' bit was quietly dropped years ago.

Again, apologies for not recalling that you wrote the original post Imo Johnson is an opportunist chancer who would stop at nothing to further his own cause. However, he does possess the (most?) important political attribute: charisma, so he was forgiven most of his sins by the UK electorate. Truss has zero charisma and doesn't appear to be very capable.

And I've replaced him with someone who I didn't consider fit to serve in my original cabinet.

Probably - and hopefully - true Personally, I'm not so sure about that Agreed Can't see that helping. A Westminster parliament without Scottish MPs would probably help Labour more. Instead of having to govern in a coalition, they would probably be able to form a government on their own.