Not really, actually the pipedreams met raw geopolitical reality and reality won. It's still a very very hard Brexit, harder than Brexiters were arguing for during the referendum.
THE FOURTH OF JULY
- Thread starter niall Y
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Rhossydd
Established Member
This was the absolute farce of the brexit campaign that so many failed to see.
There was no 'manifesto' just a slogan from a bunch of people who had no ability to push through any sort of policy. They could, and did, make the most ridiculous claims and promises without any duty or ability to make them happen.
Any thoughtful person could see an out vote would be damaging, chaotic and the absurd claims of the campaigners to get out were impossible to reconcile.
It was Cameron's major failure to consider and have a plan for exiting in place before the referendum was announced.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Actually I think I may have misheard.
I thought he said “remainers Brexit”, but maybe he actually said “dogs breakfast”
Anyway back to GE2024 there has been complete silence on brexit.
Why?
A = because Conservatives don’t want to wind up the ever increasing numbers of brexit sceptics
and Labour don’t to wind up Brexit supporters, who make up a lot of voters in those key marginals they need to win.
Just remember whoever wins will be renegotiating the TCA in 2026.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Brexit has destroyed the Conservative Party…..which was replaced by a right wing populist party in 2019.
It’s managed to burn 5 Tory PMs (Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak)
I think most Conservative supporters are the small c traditional conservatives who hate what their party has become.
Keith Cocker
Established Member
Keith Cocker
Established Member
Pineapples on stilts
Keith Cocker
Established Member
Not a hard job.
Yorkieguy
Established Member
Booming Population - poor productivity growth since 2010 .(Lowest for two centuries):
Too much shirking - not enough working?
Too many people 'economically inactive'?
Too much emphasis on re-distributing wealth than creating it?
A snippet of a recent interesting report, (Economics - not Politics), by the independent Resolution Foundation:
Quote:
The Chancellor has been keen to highlight the most recent GDP data for early 2024, which was the strongest in the G7, while the Shadow Chancellor has been highlighting the record over the parliament as a whole, in which GDP per capita has fallen by 1.2 per cent.
But looking at the UK’s overall record on economic growth since 2010, the report notes that its relative performance has been middle-of-the-pack. Compared to other G7 economies, the UK has grown faster than Germany, France, Italy and Japan, slower than the US and Canada, and is about average across the OECD.
However, this solid if unspectacular performance on GDP has been flattered by a booming population, which has grown by 0.7 per cent a year since 2010, equivalent to six million more people. This is the fastest population growth the UK has seen for a century, with three-quarters of it accounted for by migration.
Looking at GDP per capita, which accounts for population growth, the UK’s overall and relative performance is far worse. GDP per capita has grown by a mere 4.3 per cent over the past 16 years in total, compared to 46 per cent in the 16 years prior to this.
Growth in the 2010s was largely driven by an employment boom (peaking at 76.1 per cent in Q4 2019) which has since turned to bust (now 74.5 per cent in Q1 2024), exposing the UK’s poor record on productivity – the ultimate driver of rising living standards.
In the 2010s, productivity (output per worker) grew by just 0.6 per cent a year – less than a third of the rate enjoyed in the decade running up to the financial crisis (2.2 per cent) – and the second worst performance in the G7 after Italy. Productivity growth since the financial crisis has been the slowest for two centuries.
And while the UK’s longstanding productivity woes are now also being experienced by other advanced economies such as France and Germany, Britain has found new areas of economic exceptionalism on trade – for good and for ill.
The report finds that, since 2019, the UK has cemented its role as the world’s second biggest exporter of services after the US, with services exports growing by 7.8 per cent a year, compared to an OECD average of just 5.4 per cent. This is especially encouraging given the global trade in services is forecast to grow faster than goods in the coming decade, and the UK is well placed to capitalise on this trade tailwind.
Far less welcome, however, has been its weak performance on goods trade. The UK has failed to capitalise on the post-pandemic boom in goods trade – losing market share in the goods that it sells to other countries – and seeing goods exports grow by just 1.1 per cent a year, compared to 5.3 per cent across the OECD.
Looking ahead to what might drive future economic growth, the report says that the employment boom that boosted growth in the 2010s is unlikely to be repeated. Migration levels are expected to fall, from 685,000 in 2023 to around 350,000 annually over the next five years, while an unhealthy population and UK’s large baby boomer cohort retiring will put further downward pressure on the future growth of the workforce.
Instead, future economic growth will need to come from the UK addressing its long-standing weakness on productivity, and leveraging its long-standing strengths in services.
Britain’s middling growth record has been propped up by a booming population. The extra six million people in Britain have certainly made the economy bigger, but has done little for GDP per capita. In fact, the UK’s record on productivity – which is what really matters for living standards – is exceptionally bad.
Unquote.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/britains-economic-growth-has-been-flattered-by-a-booming-population-but-rising-productivity-holds-key-to-stronger-growth-in-the-next-parliament/#:~:text=But%20looking%20at%20the%20UK's,about%20average%20across%20the%20OECD
Too much shirking - not enough working?
Too many people 'economically inactive'?
Too much emphasis on re-distributing wealth than creating it?
A snippet of a recent interesting report, (Economics - not Politics), by the independent Resolution Foundation:
Quote:
The Chancellor has been keen to highlight the most recent GDP data for early 2024, which was the strongest in the G7, while the Shadow Chancellor has been highlighting the record over the parliament as a whole, in which GDP per capita has fallen by 1.2 per cent.
But looking at the UK’s overall record on economic growth since 2010, the report notes that its relative performance has been middle-of-the-pack. Compared to other G7 economies, the UK has grown faster than Germany, France, Italy and Japan, slower than the US and Canada, and is about average across the OECD.
However, this solid if unspectacular performance on GDP has been flattered by a booming population, which has grown by 0.7 per cent a year since 2010, equivalent to six million more people. This is the fastest population growth the UK has seen for a century, with three-quarters of it accounted for by migration.
Looking at GDP per capita, which accounts for population growth, the UK’s overall and relative performance is far worse. GDP per capita has grown by a mere 4.3 per cent over the past 16 years in total, compared to 46 per cent in the 16 years prior to this.
Growth in the 2010s was largely driven by an employment boom (peaking at 76.1 per cent in Q4 2019) which has since turned to bust (now 74.5 per cent in Q1 2024), exposing the UK’s poor record on productivity – the ultimate driver of rising living standards.
In the 2010s, productivity (output per worker) grew by just 0.6 per cent a year – less than a third of the rate enjoyed in the decade running up to the financial crisis (2.2 per cent) – and the second worst performance in the G7 after Italy. Productivity growth since the financial crisis has been the slowest for two centuries.
And while the UK’s longstanding productivity woes are now also being experienced by other advanced economies such as France and Germany, Britain has found new areas of economic exceptionalism on trade – for good and for ill.
The report finds that, since 2019, the UK has cemented its role as the world’s second biggest exporter of services after the US, with services exports growing by 7.8 per cent a year, compared to an OECD average of just 5.4 per cent. This is especially encouraging given the global trade in services is forecast to grow faster than goods in the coming decade, and the UK is well placed to capitalise on this trade tailwind.
Far less welcome, however, has been its weak performance on goods trade. The UK has failed to capitalise on the post-pandemic boom in goods trade – losing market share in the goods that it sells to other countries – and seeing goods exports grow by just 1.1 per cent a year, compared to 5.3 per cent across the OECD.
Looking ahead to what might drive future economic growth, the report says that the employment boom that boosted growth in the 2010s is unlikely to be repeated. Migration levels are expected to fall, from 685,000 in 2023 to around 350,000 annually over the next five years, while an unhealthy population and UK’s large baby boomer cohort retiring will put further downward pressure on the future growth of the workforce.
Instead, future economic growth will need to come from the UK addressing its long-standing weakness on productivity, and leveraging its long-standing strengths in services.
Britain’s middling growth record has been propped up by a booming population. The extra six million people in Britain have certainly made the economy bigger, but has done little for GDP per capita. In fact, the UK’s record on productivity – which is what really matters for living standards – is exceptionally bad.
Unquote.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/britains-economic-growth-has-been-flattered-by-a-booming-population-but-rising-productivity-holds-key-to-stronger-growth-in-the-next-parliament/#:~:text=But%20looking%20at%20the%20UK's,about%20average%20across%20the%20OECD
Yorkieguy
Established Member
Those who 'made it happen' were the majority of those who bothered to vote.
Lot's of those who say they 'didn't vote for Brexit' didn't vote, full stop.
Like many I guess, I was surprised at the outcome of the EU referendum – I’d imagined that with the pre-referendum doom-laden ‘Project Fear’ campaign, the result would have been something like 57/43 to remain, due to the effect of London and Scottish votes.
As with the current pre-election debates, the standard of debate was appalling – little objective information – just a lot of name-calling on both sides. Rather too many (on any topic), seem to have lost the ability to disagree with others, without be disagreeable. 'Going for the player - not the ball'. (Anti)social media seems to have made matters far worse and that's not going to change.
After the referendum, the very people who claim to be concerned about the economy, were the ‘prophets of doom’ who are dragging it down, not helped by the ‘Twitterati’ – those such as Jeremy Clarkson, who offensively said “the country has been trashed by a bunch of old ‘coffin dodgers’ in the North who don’t want to live next to a ******”. Ironic that Clarkson should use ageist and racially offensive terms to accuse others of being racist, but then he’s got form as regards to making racist, xenophobic, sexist and ageist comments. And he was wrong of course, as he so often is.
Every single Region of Great Britain (including Gibraltar), except London, N.I. and Scotland voted to leave - the highest proportion being not in the North, but in the West Midlands, where 59.6% voted to leave – the same proportion who in London, voted to stay, but then London is no more typical of G.B. than the Vatican is of Italy.
It was said that 'ignorant old fogies trashed their grandchildren’s future'. Well consider the proportion that bothered to vote in each age band, and how they voted:
Age band: % who voted How they voted
18-24 yrs olds: 38% 64/36% remain/leave
25-34 yrs old: 45% 57/43% remain/leave
35-44 yrs old: 53% 54/46% remain/leave
45-54 yrs old: 66% 44/54% remain/leave
55 yrs plus: 80% 40/60% remain/leave
So, if six in ten under 25s didn’t even bother to vote, fewer than half of 25-34 yr olds, and just over half of 35-44 yr olds, it seems to me that if they don’t like the outcome, maybe they should have put their votes where their mouths were, like eight out of ten over 55s did? Do they ever consider how much of a struggle former generations had to get the vote that six out of ten under 25s don’t bother to use?
It's all history now .
'All the King's horses and all the King's men,
Can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again'.
Last edited by a moderator:
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
No one made it happen. That's the point; there was never a form of Brexit that "worked".
On the morning after the vote there were plenty of exasperated journalists realising that those who championed Leave didn't actually have any plan for what they'd do if they won. It is, was, and always will have been, a fantasy.
From that moment onwards (other than admitting the con) the only thing they could do was to blame everyone and everything else for the lack of unicorns and sunlit uplands. It's amazing how all the various Brexit backers keep telling us it would have been brilliant if only it'd been done the way they said - despite many of them actually being in power over the last few years.
I'll remind you again - it was Cummings - the head of Vote Leave, who described Davis as thick.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
If I recall correctly that was one of the claims (or depending on your level of cynicism, excuses) from the people who did the predictions - they got the numbers right (in that there was a remain majority) but underestimated the low turnout amongst younger voters. Ironically, not getting out to vote hurt them the most.
Rhossydd
Established Member
I think there was a lot of complacency that people wouldn't be daft enough to vote to leave and the opinion polls indicated that. Less worldly youth can be naïve and trusting until they experience just how wrong polls can be.
What wasn't clear was the amount of misinformation and lies being sophisticatedly targeted at potential leave voters via social media. Unseen and unaccountable, but darkly persuasive. That undoubtedly had a bigger effect than expected, especially as it was the first really big polling event after social media had become so pervasive.
The ability to fake video and sound and even greater sophistication in targeting will continue to make keeping voting well informed, fair and honest very difficult.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Farage was interviewed on LBC this morning. He insists that Brexit is a success story whose failure is down to implementation incompetence by the Tory party.
I think him delusional - but he is a very effective communicator whose views will resonate with many.
The entire Brexit case was characterised by spin and slogans. Facts and logic counted for little as Remainers found on polling day.
There is a lot in common with current GE campaigns - what separates Tory from Labour economically is marginal trivia. Changes in tax regimes and spending which may total (say) £20bn pa is less than 1% of UK GDP of £2274bn.
Neither has any radical or transformational ideas - slightly tuned more of the same. Labour poll lead is overwhelmingly down to emotion (they are not Tories), not that they have fundamentally and materially better ideas (difficult to see much difference at all).
This may be at the heart of why Reform are picking up a lot of support:
I think him delusional - but he is a very effective communicator whose views will resonate with many.
The entire Brexit case was characterised by spin and slogans. Facts and logic counted for little as Remainers found on polling day.
There is a lot in common with current GE campaigns - what separates Tory from Labour economically is marginal trivia. Changes in tax regimes and spending which may total (say) £20bn pa is less than 1% of UK GDP of £2274bn.
Neither has any radical or transformational ideas - slightly tuned more of the same. Labour poll lead is overwhelmingly down to emotion (they are not Tories), not that they have fundamentally and materially better ideas (difficult to see much difference at all).
This may be at the heart of why Reform are picking up a lot of support:
- they have sound bites not policies - simple to understand
- they communicate clear intentions without spin - unlike the establishment parties
- alienating those who don't agree with them is an acceptable price to be paid for the support of those who do
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Agreed. And like the Brexit campaign, Reform appeal to the anti-foreigner/anti-immigrant mindset... and also backed by the kind of wealth that doesn't actually give even the slightest stuff about "the people".
Poor old Craig Williams, betting a ton on a July election. He was only doing what many of his immediate colleagues had done, insider info for personal gain, tho on a tiny scale in comparison with them. What an [bottom] - tho a timely reminder of what the tories are about.
and the breakdown
The problem looks like we have an aging population which is just going to keep going up, a lot of inactive workers which means there will be fewer people paying into the system as more people are withdrawing and a stagnant economy. They are trying to put the brakes on pensioners by raising the age to keep them working but the cost is just going to keep on growing.
Brexit is now history, no point in pondering the what if's or debating it because it is done and rather than wallow in the past we must look forward and stand on our own feet like we used to do for centuries, the problem here is that we do not have much left on which to grow an economy and have become lazy and relied on others far too much.
My understanding is that a large part of Britain's historical economic success was won precisely off the back of others, under the title of "empire'.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
We have an aging population and increasing numbers on other benefits - but simply importing more labour to cover the shortfall in domestic workers is unsustainable:
We need to address the challenge of how to match labour availability with the needs being placed upon it, and is likely to require some radical changes:
- it places continual pressure on infrastructure - housing, schools, healthcare etc which can only be met by increasing immigration yet further
- the UK is a densely populated country - more people increases environmental stresses.
- there is no foreseeable end to the imbalance - over time current immigrants will grow old and similarly need more care
- it is a short term expediency at the expense of long term stability
We need to address the challenge of how to match labour availability with the needs being placed upon it, and is likely to require some radical changes:
- the retirement age will need to continue to increase. A society needs to support those unable to work, but not those merely disinclined
- there needs to be a shift in expectations - no longer can most aspire to be working at their most senior level and maximum earnings in the run up to retirement
- it needs to be easier and culturally more acceptable to wind down from work. Some legislation already exists. Change is required to make pre-retirement jobs physically less demanding, offer part time and possibly at more junior levels
- investment in technology, AI and healthcare should prioritise improving quality and a useful working life, possibly over extending a life of infirmity
- a civilised society should willingly provide support to those in need. Those abusing the privilege should be denied - increasing claimants in recent years suggests there are many
Or Brexit is done and some people need to get over it and move on.
Wrong. The success was down to good management and education of the colonies. If Britain was that bad, would we still have Commonwealth countries today?
- Status
