Boris Johnson was last matched at 5.8 for next Prime Minister and 6 for next Conservative leader. He is therefore now the favourite in both races.
One quirk is that Rishi Sunak (who he?) is shorter to lay for next Prime Minister (120) than to back for next Conservative leader (180). This is a discrepancy that has persisted for quite some time. Those with suitable balances on both markets might wish to take advantage of this. I'm sure there's a rational explanation for this, but it doesn't seem to involve betting.
I think Boris is a clear lay.
On present polling Boris is the only Tory who can stop a Corbyn premiership
Incidentally, I've also mopped up the lays at 3.6 on May leaving this year. Having lasted this long it's barely conceivable that she'll chuck in the towel in the middle of the final round of negotiations. In the same way, Trump to leave this year looks an excellent lay even at 13.
For the same reason, unless something really dramatic happens I can't see a VoNC in May before next year. If she won it, she's safe for a year, and she would while negotiations are going on. However, if her enemies are patient I think most members of the PCP will want to remove her fairly swiftly after that and a VoNC becomes feasible.
The rumour I have heard is most Tories are preparing for a VONC next autumn but will let May complete Brexit negotiations and try for a transition deal first so she carries the can for it all and the inevitable caving to the EU and the Chequers Deal and trouncing the Tories will receive in next May's local elections
As usual they don't seem to have thought that through. May comes up with a deal, say Chequers- , what do they do? Do they vote against it with the result we have no deal with all the uncertainty and likely unpopularity of that or do they vote for it? If they vote for it how do they credibly then bring forward a VONC in light of the deal they have just supported?
They can try to argue its still better than no deal but that May screwed up the negotiations. That would have the small benefit of being true but I am not sure it will be an easy sell. I increasingly see May going into the next election as leader unless she decides herself she has had enough. It does not fill me with joy.
I think they will try and amend the withdrawal bill not vote it down entirely at 3rd reading.
If they did, May’s government would fall. She’s very likely to make it a confidence vote.
And the public are right. It has been truly pathetic. But Tories don't have the luxury of standing on the sidelines offering a critique. They either vote for or against.
There's this naïve idea that after 29 March 2019 everything is going to settle down. There are now only really two permutations on which Brexit can go ahead:
1) It does so on the basis of a deal that is cordially despised by both Remainers and most Leavers, with no legitimacy and with both groups outraged that it was not put to a public vote.
2) It does so without a deal, with at a minimum considerable short-term disruption and clear majority opposition, and appalling relations with all Britain's nearest neighbours.
I don't see either of those being recipes for Brexit somehow retreating into a matter of historical interest only.
Whilst I don't disagree with your premise completely I think that there is a third scenario, where May does a deal on leaving, paying the bills, EU citizens etc, but the more complicated stuff like trade and how we deal with customs/local content etc is knocked down the road for further discussion with things remaining largely status quo until that is done. That seems to me the most likely scenario which means things will very much not have settled down and the same problems that have caused May's critics to stay their hands at present will continue to apply.
Look around you. Brexiters are willing to see Northern Ireland go up in flames to secure Brexit. English Leavers would see Scottish independence as an acceptable price for Brexit. These people are not going to settle down into their chairs just because the can has been kicked down the road. The straw will remain in the pitchfork and the matches will be on standby.
Which is why things will not settle down. They will want to claw back the ground that May has conceded (in fairness May herself seems to be doing this in NI) so the war of words goes on, particularly if the form of the final deal is still up for grabs as I believe it will be.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
We had it at $1.25 and €1.05 in the event of a a leave vote. Sterling definitely touched those lows for quite a lengthy period.
In any case, I think those would be fair value for Sterling in the case of no deal. As I said, the stabiliser effect would help stave off a prolonged and deep recession.
Not a bad tip but one i’m not inclined to follow through on as I’m not seeing the value here that Alastair does, and I also don’t know enough about the mood in Sweden.
I also don't know much about Sweden.
But I think there are things that need to be taken out of, for example, the Dutch election. I believe that a lot of the traditional parties were too quiet for too long on the difficulties of integrating migrants - particular those from countries very unlike Sweden or the Netherlands. The voters, by and large, wanted to be listed to on this issue. But they weren't that keen on Geert Wilders as actual Prime Minister. That liked what he said, but they didn't actual want him in charge,
As the traditional parties began to recognise voters' concerns, they left the PVV or the FN for other parties.
Now there is an exception to this: Italy. But Italy - unlike Sweden or the Netherlands - had another kicker, economic stagnation.
So, if the traditional Swedish parties address the concerns of voters about mass immigration from non-European countries, then I suspect the Swedish Democrats will probably fall back. If they do not, then it's hard to know.
At 1.83, I suspect Alistair's lay is a good bet. But I wouldn't bet my - or anyone else's - house on it.
That’s all fair. I don’t have a sense, I’m afraid, as to how seriously the Social democrats and Moderates in Sweden are taking those concerns though.
Last time I checked their approach was to say they wouldn’t touch the SD with a bargepole, which in my view just angers voters more.
Incidentally, I've also mopped up the lays at 3.6 on May leaving this year. Having lasted this long it's barely conceivable that she'll chuck in the towel in the middle of the final round of negotiations. In the same way, Trump to leave this year looks an excellent lay even at 13.
For the same reason, unless something really dramatic happens I can't see a VoNC in May before next year. If she won it, she's safe for a year, and she would while negotiations are going on. However, if her enemies are patient I think most members of the PCP will want to remove her fairly swiftly after that and a VoNC becomes feasible.
The rumour I have heard is most Tories are preparing for a VONC next autumn but will let May complete Brexit negotiations and try for a transition deal first so she carries the can for it all and the inevitable caving to the EU and the Chequers Deal and trouncing the Tories will receive in next May's local elections
As usual they don't seem to have thought that through. May comes up with a deal, say Chequers- , what do they do? Do they vote against it with the result we have no deal with all the uncertainty and likely unpopularity of that or do they vote for it? If they vote for it how do they credibly then bring forward a VONC in light of the deal they have just supported?
They can try to argue its still better than no deal but that May screwed up the negotiations. That would have the small benefit of being true but I am not sure it will be an easy sell. I increasingly see May going into the next election as leader unless she decides herself she has had enough. It does not fill me with joy.
May will agree a transition deal but as that will almost certainly not see the EU agree a FTA by its end date in December 2020 she will then be dumped and replaced before the next general election is due in 2022, probably by Boris
Boris Johnson was last matched at 5.8 for next Prime Minister and 6 for next Conservative leader. He is therefore now the favourite in both races.
One quirk is that Rishi Sunak (who he?) is shorter to lay for next Prime Minister (120) than to back for next Conservative leader (180). This is a discrepancy that has persisted for quite some time. Those with suitable balances on both markets might wish to take advantage of this. I'm sure there's a rational explanation for this, but it doesn't seem to involve betting.
I think Boris is a clear lay.
On present polling Boris is the only Tory who can stop a Corbyn premiership
Yes, and I think the polling is bollocks. It’s name recognition and an inability of the public to know how crap he is, because they haven’t seen him in action up close.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
I don't think Tom Newton Dunn was fully listening. Carney was just giving an example of what the UK banking system could cope with systemically. It wasn't a prediction about No Deal.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
I don't think Tom Newton Dunn was fully listening. Carney was just giving an example of what the UK banking system could cope with systemically. It wasn't a prediction about No Deal.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
We had it at $1.25 and €1.05 in the event of a a leave vote. Sterling definitely touched those lows for quite a lengthy period.
In any case, I think those would be fair value for Sterling in the case of no deal. As I said, the stabiliser effect would help stave off a prolonged and deep recession.
I’ve seen multiple predictions of sterling hitting parity with the dollar, and below.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
We had it at $1.25 and €1.05 in the event of a a leave vote. Sterling definitely touched those lows for quite a lengthy period.
In any case, I think those would be fair value for Sterling in the case of no deal. As I said, the stabiliser effect would help stave off a prolonged and deep recession.
I’ve seen multiple predictions of sterling hitting parity with the dollar, and below.
That hasn’t happened.
I think a lot of the higher profile publicly released reports were full of crap at the time. Attention grabbing rubbish, is one way to describe them. Lots of the less public reports had it much closer to the truth though. I think our brexit report was never released to the public or to investors, it was used as a basis for our brexit strategy so it didn't make sense to release it.
Boris Johnson was last matched at 5.8 for next Prime Minister and 6 for next Conservative leader. He is therefore now the favourite in both races.
One quirk is that Rishi Sunak (who he?) is shorter to lay for next Prime Minister (120) than to back for next Conservative leader (180). This is a discrepancy that has persisted for quite some time. Those with suitable balances on both markets might wish to take advantage of this. I'm sure there's a rational explanation for this, but it doesn't seem to involve betting.
I think Boris is a clear lay.
On present polling Boris is the only Tory who can stop a Corbyn premiership
Yes, and I think the polling is bollocks. It’s name recognition and an inability of the public to know how crap he is, because they haven’t seen him in action up close.
No, it is reaction to the Chequers Deal and the Tory voters who have moved to UKIP.
Given Javid is now Home Secretary and Hunt Foreign Secretary they are also rapidly running out of the ability to use the 'name recognition' excuse if they do not improve their ratings with Tory members and voters and the public and against Corbyn fast Boris will be unstoppable and Mogg I expect would back him too
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
Over 3 years sterling is down 21.5% against the Euro and 16% against the dollar. These are not small figures and it is astonishing that inflation has been so well behaved in that period. This is probably the peak effect because the figures for other periods are much lower, eg 5 years it is -2% against the Euro and -13.8% against the dollar but I am not sure it is correct to say that the devaluation of sterling has been overstated.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
Over 3 years sterling is down 21.5% against the Euro and 16% against the dollar. These are not small figures and it is astonishing that inflation has been so well behaved in that period. This is probably the peak effect because the figures for other periods are much lower, eg 5 years it is -2% against the Euro and -13.8% against the dollar but I am not sure it is correct to say that the devaluation of sterling has been overstated.
I think my ideal (Read pie in the sky) solution would be to be outside the Single Market, inside the customs union and inside the Euro to LOCK IN at ~ 1.15 or so. Hopefully the deal we get with the EU won't make sterling surge too much - the majority of our income for the next couple of years may well be in Euros.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
Over 3 years sterling is down 21.5% against the Euro and 16% against the dollar. These are not small figures and it is astonishing that inflation has been so well behaved in that period. This is probably the peak effect because the figures for other periods are much lower, eg 5 years it is -2% against the Euro and -13.8% against the dollar but I am not sure it is correct to say that the devaluation of sterling has been overstated.
I think my ideal (Read pie in the sky) solution would be to be outside the Single Market, inside the customs union and inside the Euro to LOCK IN at ~ 1.15 or so. Hopefully the deal we get with the EU won't make sterling surge too much - the majority of our income for the next couple of years may well be in Euros.
If you want to see the disaster the Euro has been for unemployment in southern Europe look at Spain, Italy and Greece
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
Over 3 years sterling is down 21.5% against the Euro and 16% against the dollar. These are not small figures and it is astonishing that inflation has been so well behaved in that period. This is probably the peak effect because the figures for other periods are much lower, eg 5 years it is -2% against the Euro and -13.8% against the dollar but I am not sure it is correct to say that the devaluation of sterling has been overstated.
I think my ideal (Read pie in the sky) solution would be to be outside the Single Market, inside the customs union and inside the Euro to LOCK IN at ~ 1.15 or so. Hopefully the deal we get with the EU won't make sterling surge too much - the majority of our income for the next couple of years may well be in Euros.
There is no way that we will be locking ourselves in to a rate against the Euro. FWIW I also expect the proportion of our earnings in Euros to fall fairly sharply, regardless as to the form of the deal.
Not a bad tip but one i’m not inclined to follow through on as I’m not seeing the value here that Alastair does, and I also don’t know enough about the mood in Sweden.
I also don't know much about Sweden.
But I think there are things that need to be taken out of, for example, the Dutch election. I believe that a lot of the traditional parties were too quiet for too long on the difficulties of integrating migrants - particular those from countries very unlike Sweden or the Netherlands. The voters, by and large, wanted to be listed to on this issue. But they weren't that keen on Geert Wilders as actual Prime Minister. That liked what he said, but they didn't actual want him in charge,
As the traditional parties began to recognise voters' concerns, they left the PVV or the FN for other parties.
Now there is an exception to this: Italy. But Italy - unlike Sweden or the Netherlands - had another kicker, economic stagnation.
So, if the traditional Swedish parties address the concerns of voters about mass immigration from non-European countries, then I suspect the Swedish Democrats will probably fall back. If they do not, then it's hard to know.
At 1.83, I suspect Alistair's lay is a good bet. But I wouldn't bet my - or anyone else's - house on it.
That’s all fair. I don’t have a sense, I’m afraid, as to how seriously the Social democrats and Moderates in Sweden are taking those concerns though.
Last time I checked their approach was to say they wouldn’t touch the SD with a bargepole, which in my view just angers voters more.
This review seems to have the Social Democrats tightening up asylum a lot. The issue seems to be this rather than EU migration. Possibly the Moderates will suffer for being in charge in 2015.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
Over 3 years sterling is down 21.5% against the Euro and 16% against the dollar. These are not small figures and it is astonishing that inflation has been so well behaved in that period. This is probably the peak effect because the figures for other periods are much lower, eg 5 years it is -2% against the Euro and -13.8% against the dollar but I am not sure it is correct to say that the devaluation of sterling has been overstated.
I think my ideal (Read pie in the sky) solution would be to be outside the Single Market, inside the customs union and inside the Euro to LOCK IN at ~ 1.15 or so. Hopefully the deal we get with the EU won't make sterling surge too much - the majority of our income for the next couple of years may well be in Euros.
If you want to see the disaster the Euro has been for unemployment in southern Europe look at Spain, Italy and Greece
I appreciate it's a minority occupation in the UK but we're an exporter of goods. Sterling surging isn't great for us, weak sterling OK - stable sterling even better.
Not a bad tip but one i’m not inclined to follow through on as I’m not seeing the value here that Alastair does, and I also don’t know enough about the mood in Sweden.
I also don't know much about Sweden.
But I think there are things that need to be taken out of, for example, the Dutch election. I believe that a lot of the traditional parties were too quiet for too long on the difficulties of integrating migrants - particular those from countries very unlike Sweden or the Netherlands. The voters, by and large, wanted to be listed to on this issue. But they weren't that keen on Geert Wilders as actual Prime Minister. That liked what he said, but they didn't actual want him in charge,
As the traditional parties began to recognise voters' concerns, they left the PVV or the FN for other parties.
Now there is an exception to this: Italy. But Italy - unlike Sweden or the Netherlands - had another kicker, economic stagnation.
So, if the traditional Swedish parties address the concerns of voters about mass immigration from non-European countries, then I suspect the Swedish Democrats will probably fall back. If they do not, then it's hard to know.
At 1.83, I suspect Alistair's lay is a good bet. But I wouldn't bet my - or anyone else's - house on it.
That’s all fair. I don’t have a sense, I’m afraid, as to how seriously the Social democrats and Moderates in Sweden are taking those concerns though.
Last time I checked their approach was to say they wouldn’t touch the SD with a bargepole, which in my view just angers voters more.
This review seems to have the Social Democrats tightening up asylum a lot. The issue seems to be this rather than EU migration. Possibly the Moderates will suffer for being in charge in 2015.
Boris Johnson was last matched at 5.8 for next Prime Minister and 6 for next Conservative leader. He is therefore now the favourite in both races.
One quirk is that Rishi Sunak (who he?) is shorter to lay for next Prime Minister (120) than to back for next Conservative leader (180). This is a discrepancy that has persisted for quite some time. Those with suitable balances on both markets might wish to take advantage of this. I'm sure there's a rational explanation for this, but it doesn't seem to involve betting.
I think Boris is a clear lay.
On present polling Boris is the only Tory who can stop a Corbyn premiership
Yes, and I think the polling is bollocks. It’s name recognition and an inability of the public to know how crap he is, because they haven’t seen him in action up close.
No, it is reaction to the Chequers Deal and the Tory voters who have moved to UKIP.
Given Javid is now Home Secretary and Hunt Foreign Secretary they are also rapidly running out of the ability to use the 'name recognition' excuse if they do not improve their ratings with Tory members and voters and the public and against Corbyn fast Boris will be unstoppable and Mogg I expect would back him too
With respect you wear blinkers. Boris will not be pm
And the public are right. It has been truly pathetic. But Tories don't have the luxury of standing on the sidelines offering a critique. They either vote for or against.
There's this naïve idea that after 29 March 2019 everything is going to settle down. There are now only really two permutations on which Brexit can go ahead:
1) It does so on the basis of a deal that is cordially despised by both Remainers and most Leavers, with no legitimacy and with both groups outraged that it was not put to a public vote.
2) It does so without a deal, with at a minimum considerable short-term disruption and clear majority opposition, and appalling relations with all Britain's nearest neighbours.
I don't see either of those being recipes for Brexit somehow retreating into a matter of historical interest only.
Whilst I don't disagree with your premise completely I think that there is a third scenario, where May does a deal on leaving, paying the bills, EU citizens etc, but the more complicated stuff like trade and how we deal with customs/local content etc is knocked down the road for further discussion with things remaining largely status quo until that is done. That seems to me the most likely scenario which means things will very much not have settled down and the same problems that have caused May's critics to stay their hands at present will continue to apply.
I think Limbo Brexit (Transition with no agreed destination) is the most likely Brexit in March.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
Over 3 years sterling is down 21.5% against the Euro and 16% against the dollar. These are not small figures and it is astonishing that inflation has been so well behaved in that period. This is probably the peak effect because the figures for other periods are much lower, eg 5 years it is -2% against the Euro and -13.8% against the dollar but I am not sure it is correct to say that the devaluation of sterling has been overstated.
I think my ideal (Read pie in the sky) solution would be to be outside the Single Market, inside the customs union and inside the Euro to LOCK IN at ~ 1.15 or so. Hopefully the deal we get with the EU won't make sterling surge too much - the majority of our income for the next couple of years may well be in Euros.
You want the UK to join the euro?
That’s one heck of a journey you’ve made.
If there’s one thing that I think has been proven over the last 10 years, it’s the benefits of having our own freely floating currency and independent macroeconomic policy.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
Over 3 years sterling is down 21.5% against the Euro and 16% against the dollar. These are not small figures and it is astonishing that inflation has been so well behaved in that period. This is probably the peak effect because the figures for other periods are much lower, eg 5 years it is -2% against the Euro and -13.8% against the dollar but I am not sure it is correct to say that the devaluation of sterling has been overstated.
I didn’t say they were small. I said the forecasts were overestimated, which they were.
We were supposed to be at parity with the dollar by now.
Boris Johnson was last matched at 5.8 for next Prime Minister and 6 for next Conservative leader. He is therefore now the favourite in both races.
One quirk is that Rishi Sunak (who he?) is shorter to lay for next Prime Minister (120) than to back for next Conservative leader (180). This is a discrepancy that has persisted for quite some time. Those with suitable balances on both markets might wish to take advantage of this. I'm sure there's a rational explanation for this, but it doesn't seem to involve betting.
I think Boris is a clear lay.
On present polling Boris is the only Tory who can stop a Corbyn premiership
Yes, and I think the polling is bollocks. It’s name recognition and an inability of the public to know how crap he is, because they haven’t seen him in action up close.
No, it is reaction to the Chequers Deal and the Tory voters who have moved to UKIP.
Given Javid is now Home Secretary and Hunt Foreign Secretary they are also rapidly running out of the ability to use the 'name recognition' excuse if they do not improve their ratings with Tory members and voters and the public and against Corbyn fast Boris will be unstoppable and Mogg I expect would back him too
I will never understand your unbreakable faith in Boris.
Sorry, I don’t share it. In fact, I doubt he’d even make the final two and might even fall out in round one. But, if you disagree, feel free to lap up my money on Betfair.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
Over 3 years sterling is down 21.5% against the Euro and 16% against the dollar. These are not small figures and it is astonishing that inflation has been so well behaved in that period. This is probably the peak effect because the figures for other periods are much lower, eg 5 years it is -2% against the Euro and -13.8% against the dollar but I am not sure it is correct to say that the devaluation of sterling has been overstated.
I think my ideal (Read pie in the sky) solution would be to be outside the Single Market, inside the customs union and inside the Euro to LOCK IN at ~ 1.15 or so. Hopefully the deal we get with the EU won't make sterling surge too much - the majority of our income for the next couple of years may well be in Euros.
You want the UK to join the euro?
That’s one heck of a journey you’ve made.
If there’s one thing that I think has been proven over the last 10 years, it’s the benefits of having our own freely floating currency and independent macroeconomic policy.
Read the whole of my post - and previous. My ideal scenario would be to be in the Euro, WITH have control over freedom of movement. It's not possible though... just sterling best not surge to 1.4 to the € after we leave the EU. I work for a goods exporter, the majority of our book may well be € sales next year.
Where would the pressure be to increase interest rates to 4% in a "full blown recession"?
If the pound was absolutely tanking importing a lot of inflation, perhaps. The government is still borrowing quite a lot of money even if the total is reduced and in such a scenario they would be borrowing a lot more. Unless they just print it again they may find the yield curve going out of their control in such a scenario. But it is just to test whether Banks could take it, its not real.
Tbh, it's more likely that the bank would hold down interest rates just as it did when sterling fell after the vote. That first fall will help hold current inflation down to tolerable levels if there really is a no deal brexit. At Barclays we had it down as $1.12 and €0.96 for no deal, the implied inflation is about 3.5% for a year or so assuming no recovery, or about 3% assuming a small recovery.
The stabiliser effect will be worth the hassle though, without a currency fall the country would most assuredly fall into a long and deep recession.
So far, the currency devaluations have been overestimated virtually every single time.
Over 3 years sterling is down 21.5% against the Euro and 16% against the dollar. These are not small figures and it is astonishing that inflation has been so well behaved in that period. This is probably the peak effect because the figures for other periods are much lower, eg 5 years it is -2% against the Euro and -13.8% against the dollar but I am not sure it is correct to say that the devaluation of sterling has been overstated.
I think my ideal (Read pie in the sky) solution would be to be outside the Single Market, inside the customs union and inside the Euro to LOCK IN at ~ 1.15 or so. Hopefully the deal we get with the EU won't make sterling surge too much - the majority of our income for the next couple of years may well be in Euros.
The issue with that is that it puts the cart before the horse. The movement of exchange rates happens for a bunch of reasons and generally acts as a feedback/stabiliser on these. Forcing a given exchange rate does nothing to address these reasons and usually ensures that you'll often have the "wrong" exchange rate for your circumstances.
Getting the Euro means that you'll then lock in the almost-always-wrong exchange rate forever; leaving it is extremely challenging.
The issue with that is that it puts the cart before the horse. The movement of exchange rates happens for a bunch of reasons and generally acts as a feedback/stabiliser on these. Forcing a given exchange rate does nothing to address these reasons and usually ensures that you'll often have the "wrong" exchange rate for your circumstances.
Getting the Euro means that you'll then lock in the almost-always-wrong exchange rate forever; leaving it is extremely challenging.
See: Greece, Italy, Spain for examples.
Yes, I realise the country is a net importer so (locking in at) weak sterling isn't great. I'm just saying for our company that is does more € sales than £ it'd not be a bad thing.
Not a bad tip but one i’m not inclined to follow through on as I’m not seeing the value here that Alastair does, and I also don’t know enough about the mood in Sweden.
I also don't know much about Sweden.
But I think there are things that need to be taken out of, for example, the Dutch election. I believe that a lot of the traditional parties were too quiet for too long on the difficulties of integrating migrants - particular those from countries very unlike Sweden or the Netherlands. The voters, by and large, wanted to be listed to on this issue. But they weren't that keen on Geert Wilders as actual Prime Minister. That liked what he said, but they didn't actual want him in charge,
As the traditional parties began to recognise voters' concerns, they left the PVV or the FN for other parties.
Now there is an exception to this: Italy. But Italy - unlike Sweden or the Netherlands - had another kicker, economic stagnation.
So, if the traditional Swedish parties address the concerns of voters about mass immigration from non-European countries, then I suspect the Swedish Democrats will probably fall back. If they do not, then it's hard to know.
At 1.83, I suspect Alistair's lay is a good bet. But I wouldn't bet my - or anyone else's - house on it.
That’s all fair. I don’t have a sense, I’m afraid, as to how seriously the Social democrats and Moderates in Sweden are taking those concerns though.
Last time I checked their approach was to say they wouldn’t touch the SD with a bargepole, which in my view just angers voters more.
The SD aren't really the same as Wilders and Le Pen though. They refused to join their group in Brussels were allied with UKIP and 5 star and have now been accepted into the ECR group where the largest party are the UK Tories.
If the SD are acceptable to the UK Tories why not the Social democrats and Moderates?
And the public are right. It has been truly pathetic. But Tories don't have the luxury of standing on the sidelines offering a critique. They either vote for or against.
There's this naïve idea that after 29 March 2019 everything is going to settle down. There are now only really two permutations on which Brexit can go ahead:
1) It does so on the basis of a deal that is cordially despised by both Remainers and most Leavers, with no legitimacy and with both groups outraged that it was not put to a public vote.
2) It does so without a deal, with at a minimum considerable short-term disruption and clear majority opposition, and appalling relations with all Britain's nearest neighbours.
I don't see either of those being recipes for Brexit somehow retreating into a matter of historical interest only.
Whilst I don't disagree with your premise completely I think that there is a third scenario, where May does a deal on leaving, paying the bills, EU citizens etc, but the more complicated stuff like trade and how we deal with customs/local content etc is knocked down the road for further discussion with things remaining largely status quo until that is done. That seems to me the most likely scenario which means things will very much not have settled down and the same problems that have caused May's critics to stay their hands at present will continue to apply.
I think Limbo Brexit (Transition with no agreed destination) is the most likely Brexit in March.
The Financial Times has had two different reports in the last two days suggesting that the Uk will sign up to a deal where there is a legally binding withdrawal agreement (to pay £45bn to the UK but only a loose aspiration to have a trade deal - and the trade deal would have an unacceptable fallback on Northern Ireland.
Tony Blair did something similar when he agreed to have a reduced UK rebate in exchange for vague proposals by the EU to change the Common Agricultural Policy (which never happened).
A bit late to this but cheers to Alastair for a good, evidence-based piece. Hard to argue that the odds on SD aren't far too short given the polling - though worth noting that they were top in a further poll yesterday, and have been top in three of the last five polls published, and four of the last nine (though all YouGov or Sentio, as Alastair says, and other firms have the Social Democrats ahead by 2-5%, one of which had SD third, fractionally behind the Moderates).
Given the polling and the history that Alastair notes of polls tending to overstate the populist right (contrary to previously received wisdom), I'd agree with his implicit assessment that SocDems should be favourites. IMO, the current mid-prices of evens for SweDems and 2.32 for SweDems are back-to-front.
Having said all that, we're in danger of boiling frog syndrome with respect to the far/populist right. It is not at all a healthy state of affairs for any populist party to be winning 25% of the vote, whether or not they finish top, when prior to the 2010s they'd never received more than 3% at a general election.
Central banks run such exercises to test whether commecial bank equity capital is sufficient to witjstand a crisis. The assumptions are not predictions. TND being rather misleading for dramatic effect.
And the public are right. It has been truly pathetic. But Tories don't have the luxury of standing on the sidelines offering a critique. They either vote for or against.
There's this naïve idea that after 29 March 2019 everything is going to settle down. There are now only really two permutations on which Brexit can go ahead:
1) It does so on the basis of a deal that is cordially despised by both Remainers and most Leavers, with no legitimacy and with both groups outraged that it was not put to a public vote.
2) It does so without a deal, with at a minimum considerable short-term disruption and clear majority opposition, and appalling relations with all Britain's nearest neighbours.
I don't see either of those being recipes for Brexit somehow retreating into a matter of historical interest only.
Whilst I don't disagree with your premise completely I think that there is a third scenario, where May does a deal on leaving, paying the bills, EU citizens etc, but the more complicated stuff like trade and how we deal with customs/local content etc is knocked down the road for further discussion with things remaining largely status quo until that is done. That seems to me the most likely scenario which means things will very much not have settled down and the same problems that have caused May's critics to stay their hands at present will continue to apply.
I think Limbo Brexit (Transition with no agreed destination) is the most likely Brexit in March.
The Financial Times has had two different reports in the last two days suggesting that the Uk will sign up to a deal where there is a legally binding withdrawal agreement (to pay £45bn to the UK but only a loose aspiration to have a trade deal - and the trade deal would have an unacceptable fallback on Northern Ireland.
Tony Blair did something similar when he agreed to have a reduced UK rebate in exchange for vague proposals by the EU to change the Common Agricultural Policy (which never happened).
If we get £45bn from the EU, we could live with that. But I fear it is a typo.....
A practical note if there are any SNP members out there. My innocuous charity has made four requests to the SNP about having a (paid) stand at the conference in October. Nobody ever answers the phone line that the website tells us to call about the conference and the email requests have been ignored. What can we do to get a reply?
Not a bad tip but one i’m not inclined to follow through on as I’m not seeing the value here that Alastair does, and I also don’t know enough about the mood in Sweden.
I also don't know much about Sweden.
But I think there are things that need to be taken out of, for example, the Dutch election. I believe that a lot of the traditional parties were too quiet for too long on the difficulties of integrating migrants - particular those from countries very unlike Sweden or the Netherlands. The voters, by and large, wanted to be listed to on this issue. But they weren't that keen on Geert Wilders as actual Prime Minister. That liked what he said, but they didn't actual want him in charge,
As the traditional parties began to recognise voters' concerns, they left the PVV or the FN for other parties.
Now there is an exception to this: Italy. But Italy - unlike Sweden or the Netherlands - had another kicker, economic stagnation.
So, if the traditional Swedish parties address the concerns of voters about mass immigration from non-European countries, then I suspect the Swedish Democrats will probably fall back. If they do not, then it's hard to know.
At 1.83, I suspect Alistair's lay is a good bet. But I wouldn't bet my - or anyone else's - house on it.
That’s all fair. I don’t have a sense, I’m afraid, as to how seriously the Social democrats and Moderates in Sweden are taking those concerns though.
Last time I checked their approach was to say they wouldn’t touch the SD with a bargepole, which in my view just angers voters more.
The SD aren't really the same as Wilders and Le Pen though. They refused to join their group in Brussels were allied with UKIP and 5 star and have now been accepted into the ECR group where the largest party are the UK Tories.
If the SD are acceptable to the UK Tories why not the Social democrats and Moderates?
So the Tories are best buddies with "the descendant of the fascist movement".
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Amazon pays corporation tax on profits not 'operating' profits before staff costs or on revenues.
Amazon reinvests its income in expansion and new ventures which reduces its profit. Politicians are always berating companies for not investing. When like Amazon they do, it reduces profits and politicians complain that they pay less corporation tax. Cake and Eat it?
If the SD are acceptable to the UK Tories why not the Social democrats and Moderates?
The Moderates, who are the direct counterparts to the Conservatives, considered them so extreme that they resigned from Government and handed over power to the Social Democrats rather than accept an offer of unconditional support from the Sweden Democrats. The Tories are famously unfussy about the European allies - we used to regularly debate here their alliance with a Latvian party noted for homophobic attitudes and dodgy policies - and the Moderates would to see the Conservatives as a reliable guide to Swedish friends.
That said, the SD (who are handicapped by their openly fascist roots) have been trying to move towards the centre, and as with the AfD (and the ex-communist Linke on the left) in Germany it's forseeable that a time will come when they're seen as part of the normal landscape, like the Danish People's Party.
Why would BoE raise interest rates in a recession?
The only conceivable scenario would be to prop up Sterling in the face of massive inflation. Even for the Remainer scaremongers that’s a pretty far fetched scenario.
Whilst I don't disagree with your premise completely I think that there is a third scenario, where May does a deal on leaving, paying the bills, EU citizens etc, but the more complicated stuff like trade and how we deal with customs/local content etc is knocked down the road for further discussion with things remaining largely status quo until that is done. That seems to me the most likely scenario which means things will very much not have settled down and the same problems that have caused May's critics to stay their hands at present will continue to apply.
I think Limbo Brexit (Transition with no agreed destination) is the most likely Brexit in March.
A practical note if there are any SNP members out there. My innocuous charity has made four requests to the SNP about having a (paid) stand at the conference in October. Nobody ever answers the phone line that the website tells us to call about the conference and the email requests have been ignored. What can we do to get a reply?
Incidentally, I've also mopped up the lays at 3.6 on May leaving this year. Having lasted this long it's barely conceivable that she'll chuck in the towel in the middle of the final round of negotiations. In the same way, Trump to leave this year looks an excellent lay even at 13.
Short of death or serious illness, I don't see how Trump could possibly leave this year. The correct number is surely around 40-50, and maybe higher.
It would be worth checking the rules on paying out. Unless he resigns, he is still President even in the event of the 25th Amendment being triggered due to illness or insanity. However, there are circumstances where it is unlikely he would ever resume his powers (e.g. If Congress declared him permanently unfit).
If I may be permitted to go off my own topic, there's a very long but very good piece in Haaretz about Jeremy Corbyn's difficulties with the subject of anti-Semitism:
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Amazon pays corporation tax on profits not 'operating' profits before staff costs or on revenues.
Amazon reinvests its income in expansion and new ventures which reduces its profit. Politicians are always berating companies for not investing. When like Amazon they do, it reduces profits and politicians complain that they pay less corporation tax. Cake and Eat it?
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
If I may be permitted to go off my own topic, there's a very long but very good piece in Haaretz about Jeremy Corbyn's difficulties with the subject of anti-Semitism:
That is a very perceptive article. Although mainly about Corbyn's embrace of anti-Semitism, it also explains his other moral blind-spots really well.
There are more votes from being close to Muslim voters and against Israel than there are from Jewish voters / straying into anti-Semitism. I would like to see If Muslim support for Labour has gone up over the course of the issue.
If I may be permitted to go off my own topic, there's a very long but very good piece in Haaretz about Jeremy Corbyn's difficulties with the subject of anti-Semitism:
Not a bad tip but one i’m not inclined to follow through on as I’m not seeing the value here that Alastair does, and I also don’t know enough about the mood in Sweden.
I also don't know much about Sweden.
But I think there are things that need to be taken out of, for example, the Dutch election. I believe that a lot of the traditional parties were too quiet for too long on the difficulties of integrating migrants - particular those from countries very unlike Sweden or the Netherlands. The voters, by and large, wanted to be listed to on this issue. But they weren't that keen on Geert Wilders as actual Prime Minister. That liked what he said, but they didn't actual want him in charge,
As the traditional parties began to recognise voters' concerns, they left the PVV or the FN for other parties.
Now there is an exception to this: Italy. But Italy - unlike Sweden or the Netherlands - had another kicker, economic stagnation.
So, if the traditional Swedish parties address the concerns of voters about mass immigration from non-European countries, then I suspect the Swedish Democrats will probably fall back. If they do not, then it's hard to know.
At 1.83, I suspect Alistair's lay is a good bet. But I wouldn't bet my - or anyone else's - house on it.
That’s all fair. I don’t have a sense, I’m afraid, as to how seriously the Social democrats and Moderates in Sweden are taking those concerns though.
Last time I checked their approach was to say they wouldn’t touch the SD with a bargepole, which in my view just angers voters more.
The SD aren't really the same as Wilders and Le Pen though. They refused to join their group in Brussels were allied with UKIP and 5 star and have now been accepted into the ECR group where the largest party are the UK Tories.
If the SD are acceptable to the UK Tories why not the Social democrats and Moderates?
So the Tories are best buddies with "the descendant of the fascist movement".
There we go.
What a party stands for now is more important than what it stood for in the past. How close is Corbyn's Labour to Die Linke - descendant of the the East German Communists? (Though of course, Corbyn's links to East Germany go back to the time of communism).
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Amazon pays corporation tax on profits not 'operating' profits before staff costs or on revenues.
Amazon reinvests its income in expansion and new ventures which reduces its profit. Politicians are always berating companies for not investing. When like Amazon they do, it reduces profits and politicians complain that they pay less corporation tax. Cake and Eat it?
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I thought the minimal tax was due to colossal transfer charges from Ireland or Luxembourg which makes the foreign entities fantastically profitable, and the UK one break-even. It is of course a coincidence that: (a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even. (b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Whilst I don't disagree with your premise completely I think that there is a third scenario, where May does a deal on leaving, paying the bills, EU citizens etc, but the more complicated stuff like trade and how we deal with customs/local content etc is knocked down the road for further discussion with things remaining largely status quo until that is done. That seems to me the most likely scenario which means things will very much not have settled down and the same problems that have caused May's critics to stay their hands at present will continue to apply.
I think Limbo Brexit (Transition with no agreed destination) is the most likely Brexit in March.
+1
Almost certainly. I think May has realised that the only reason she is in post is that Tories want to pin blame for Brexit on her and then remove her. If she can leave as stated but also stretch out some further negotiations then she weakens the opposition against her.
Common sense would say that Tory MPs would realise what she is trying to do and remove her before completion of th negotiations. That uncertainty would probably increase our negotiating power ahead of the deadline.
Common sense does not seem to prevail with Brexit though!
Whilst I don't disagree with your premise completely I think that there is a third scenario, where May does a deal on leaving, paying the bills, EU citizens etc, but the more complicated stuff like trade and how we deal with customs/local content etc is knocked down the road for further discussion with things remaining largely status quo until that is done. That seems to me the most likely scenario which means things will very much not have settled down and the same problems that have caused May's critics to stay their hands at present will continue to apply.
I think Limbo Brexit (Transition with no agreed destination) is the most likely Brexit in March.
+1
Almost certainly. I think May has realised that the only reason she is in post is that Tories want to pin blame for Brexit on her and then remove her. If she can leave as stated but also stretch out some further negotiations then she weakens the opposition against her.
Common sense would say that Tory MPs would realise what she is trying to do and remove her before completion of th negotiations. That uncertainty would probably increase our negotiating power ahead of the deadline.
Common sense does not seem to prevail with Brexit though!
FPT, thanks for your comment. Perhaps my views are coloured by my clients' experiences.
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Amazon pays corporation tax on profits not 'operating' profits before staff costs or on revenues.
Amazon reinvests its income in expansion and new ventures which reduces its profit. Politicians are always berating companies for not investing. When like Amazon they do, it reduces profits and politicians complain that they pay less corporation tax. Cake and Eat it?
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I thought the minimal tax was due to colossal transfer charges from Ireland or Luxembourg which makes the foreign entities fantastically profitable, and the UK one break-even. It is of course a coincidence that: (a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even. (b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Short-version: expansion and investment, my arse.
Indeed, it is too improbable that Amazon is able to post mega profits as a group, but not be hugely profitable in its second largest market after the US. There is definitely some level of profit transfer, hopefully HMRC hit them with the diverted profits tax.
If the SD are acceptable to the UK Tories why not the Social democrats and Moderates?
The Moderates, who are the direct counterparts to the Conservatives, considered them so extreme that they resigned from Government and handed over power to the Social Democrats rather than accept an offer of unconditional support from the Sweden Democrats. The Tories are famously unfussy about the European allies - we used to regularly debate here their alliance with a Latvian party noted for homophobic attitudes and dodgy policies - and the Moderates would to see the Conservatives as a reliable guide to Swedish friends.
That said, the SD (who are handicapped by their openly fascist roots) have been trying to move towards the centre, and as with the AfD (and the ex-communist Linke on the left) in Germany it's forseeable that a time will come when they're seen as part of the normal landscape, like the Danish People's Party.
If anything, the Danish Peoples' Party is more hardline than the Swedish Democrats.
I'd expect the Social Democrats to come first, the Swedish Democrats second, the Moderates third. Hitherto, all the other parties have treated the Swedish Democrats as pariahs, which helps them, as they don't have to take any hard decisions in government (Wilders' support fell away sharply when he supported a VVD government).
There have been noises on the part of the Moderates that they could work with the Swedish Democrats. If the Moderates, Swedish Democrats, and Christian Democrats won a majority of the seats between them, I could see the Swedish Democrats offering supply and confidence to the Moderates and KD's.
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Amazon pays corporation tax on profits not 'operating' profits before staff costs or on revenues.
Amazon reinvests its income in expansion and new ventures which reduces its profit. Politicians are always berating companies for not investing. When like Amazon they do, it reduces profits and politicians complain that they pay less corporation tax. Cake and Eat it?
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I thought the minimal tax was due to colossal transfer charges from Ireland or Luxembourg which makes the foreign entities fantastically profitable, and the UK one break-even. It is of course a coincidence that: (a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even. (b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Short-version: expansion and investment, my arse.
Indeed, it is too improbable that Amazon is able to post mega profits as a group, but not be hugely profitable in its second largest market after the US. There is definitely some level of profit transfer, hopefully HMRC hit them with the diverted profits tax.
HMRC looks at this sort of thing very closely indeed for internationally parented SMEs...
A steaming pile of whataboutery and misdirection with a half-baked "both sides are mad but both have a point" conclusion. And yes, I did read the whole thing.
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Amazon pays corporation tax on profits not 'operating' profits before staff costs or on revenues.
Amazon reinvests its income in expansion and new ventures which reduces its profit. Politicians are always berating companies for not investing. When like Amazon they do, it reduces profits and politicians complain that they pay less corporation tax. Cake and Eat it?
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I thought the minimal tax was due to colossal transfer charges from Ireland or Luxembourg which makes the foreign entities fantastically profitable, and the UK one break-even. It is of course a coincidence that: (a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even. (b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Short-version: expansion and investment, my arse.
Indeed, it is too improbable that Amazon is able to post mega profits as a group, but not be hugely profitable in its second largest market after the US. There is definitely some level of profit transfer, hopefully HMRC hit them with the diverted profits tax.
HMRC looks at this sort of thing very closely indeed for internationally parented SMEs...
UK revenue was over £11 billion. Global profit $3 billion while still massively expanding. UK "profit" was less than £5 million in a very mature market for them. Hmmm.
Whoever their accountants (and lawyers) are, they are worth every penny they earn.
EDIT: are you actually calling Amazon UK an SME!?!
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I thought the minimal tax was due to colossal transfer charges from Ireland or Luxembourg which makes the foreign entities fantastically profitable, and the UK one break-even. It is of course a coincidence that: (a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even. (b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Short-version: expansion and investment, my arse.
Indeed, it is too improbable that Amazon is able to post mega profits as a group, but not be hugely profitable in its second largest market after the US. There is definitely some level of profit transfer, hopefully HMRC hit them with the diverted profits tax.
HMRC looks at this sort of thing very closely indeed for internationally parented SMEs...
UK revenue was over £11 billion. Global profit $3 billion while still massively expanding. UK "profit" was less than £5 million in a very mature market for them. Hmmm.
Whoever their accountants (and lawyers) are, they are worth every penny they earn.
EDIT: are you actually calling Amazon UK an SME!?!
Because Amazon "claims" very little sales actually happens in the UK. I believe the sales are reported in Ireland.
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Amazon pays corporation tax on profits not 'operating' profits before staff costs or on revenues.
Amazon reinvests its income in expansion and new ventures which reduces its profit. Politicians are always berating companies for not investing. When like Amazon they do, it reduces profits and politicians complain that they pay less corporation tax. Cake and Eat it?
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I thought the minimal tax was due to colossal transfer charges from Ireland or Luxembourg which makes the foreign entities fantastically profitable, and the UK one break-even. It is of course a coincidence that: (a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even. (b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Short-version: expansion and investment, my arse.
Indeed, it is too improbable that Amazon is able to post mega profits as a group, but not be hugely profitable in its second largest market after the US. There is definitely some level of profit transfer, hopefully HMRC hit them with the diverted profits tax.
HMRC looks at this sort of thing very closely indeed for internationally parented SMEs...
UK revenue was over £11 billion. Global profit $3 billion while still massively expanding. UK "profit" was less than £5 million in a very mature market for them. Hmmm.
Whoever their accountants (and lawyers) are, they are worth every penny they earn.
Yeah, it's clearly a bunch of bullshit. They definitely need to be targeted for a diverted profits tax investigation.
Why would BoE raise interest rates in a recession?
I don't think TND has cottoned on to it being an exercise in "What if..." What if you put a weird selection of inputs into the BoE model - what happens? A smart journalist would have quizzed the Governor on the likelihood of these things all occurring at once.
I mean, I can plug Labour 70%, Tories 10%, LibDems 15% into Baxter. You might want to ask me how that might come about.
A steaming pile of whataboutery and misdirection with a half-baked "both sides are mad but both have a point" conclusion. And yes, I did read the whole thing.
A very good friend of mine has direct experience of just how much of an asshole Mark Steele can be. So much for his "man of the people" schtick....
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I thought the minimal tax was due to colossal transfer charges from Ireland or Luxembourg which makes the foreign entities fantastically profitable, and the UK one break-even. It is of course a coincidence that: (a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even. (b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Short-version: expansion and investment, my arse.
Indeed, it is too improbable that Amazon is able to post mega profits as a group, but not be hugely profitable in its second largest market after the US. There is definitely some level of profit transfer, hopefully HMRC hit them with the diverted profits tax.
HMRC looks at this sort of thing very closely indeed for internationally parented SMEs...
UK revenue was over £11 billion. Global profit $3 billion while still massively expanding. UK "profit" was less than £5 million in a very mature market for them. Hmmm.
Whoever their accountants (and lawyers) are, they are worth every penny they earn.
EDIT: are you actually calling Amazon UK an SME!?!
Because Amazon "claims" very little sales actually happens in the UK. I believe the sales are reported in Ireland.
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Amazon pays corporation tax on profits not 'operating' profits before staff costs or on revenues.
Amazon reinvests its income in expansion and new ventures which reduces its profit. Politicians are always berating companies for not investing. When like Amazon they do, it reduces profits and politicians complain that they pay less corporation tax. Cake and Eat it?
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I thought the minimal tax was due to colossal transfer charges from Ireland or Luxembourg which makes the foreign entities fantastically profitable, and the UK one break-even. It is of course a coincidence that: (a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even. (b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Short-version: expansion and investment, my arse.
Indeed, it is too improbable that Amazon is able to post mega profits as a group, but not be hugely profitable in its second largest market after the US. There is definitely some level of profit transfer, hopefully HMRC hit them with the diverted profits tax.
HMRC looks at this sort of thing very closely indeed for internationally parented SMEs...
UK revenue was over £11 billion. Global profit $3 billion while still massively expanding. UK "profit" was less than £5 million in a very mature market for them. Hmmm.
Whoever their accountants (and lawyers) are, they are worth every penny they earn.
EDIT: are you actually calling Amazon UK an SME!?!
A steaming pile of whataboutery and misdirection with a half-baked "both sides are mad but both have a point" conclusion. And yes, I did read the whole thing.
A very good friend of mine has direct experience of just how much of an asshole Mark Steele can be. So much for his "man of the people" schtick....
We have, as usual, Amazon parcels in our hall at the moment but I for one will not use them.
Well, perhaps, but there's clearly something wrong when a corporate giant is paying so little tax and at the same time placing many existing businesses under severe strain.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I thought the minimal tax was due to colossal transfer charges from Ireland or Luxembourg which makes the foreign entities fantastically profitable, and the UK one break-even. It is of course a coincidence that: (a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even. (b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Short-version: expansion and investment, my arse.
Indeed, it is too improbable that Amazon is able to post mega profits as a group, but not be hugely profitable in its second largest market after the US. There is definitely some level of profit transfer, hopefully HMRC hit them with the diverted profits tax.
HMRC looks at this sort of thing very closely indeed for internationally parented SMEs...
UK revenue was over £11 billion. Global profit $3 billion while still massively expanding. UK "profit" was less than £5 million in a very mature market for them. Hmmm.
Whoever their accountants (and lawyers) are, they are worth every penny they earn.
EDIT: are you actually calling Amazon UK an SME!?!
Because Amazon "claims" very little sales actually happens in the UK. I believe the sales are reported in Ireland.
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
Amazon being based in Ireland is just one of the many benefits of the EU Single Market.
A steaming pile of whataboutery and misdirection with a half-baked "both sides are mad but both have a point" conclusion. And yes, I did read the whole thing.
A very good friend of mine has direct experience of just how much of an asshole Mark Steele can be. So much for his "man of the people" schtick....
Because Amazon "claims" very little sales actually happens in the UK. I believe the sales are reported in Ireland.
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
Amazon being based in Ireland is just one of the many benefits of the EU Single Market.
Membership of the SM does not prevent nations within it from changing their laws and taxation system to stop - or at least curtail - this sort of abuse.
Because Amazon "claims" very little sales actually happens in the UK. I believe the sales are reported in Ireland.
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
Amazon being based in Ireland is just one of the many benefits of the EU Single Market.
Membership of the SM does not prevent nations within it from changing their laws and taxation system to stop - or at least curtail - this sort of abuse.
How does the British government tax an Irish company with servers in Ireland selling into the UK?
Because Amazon "claims" very little sales actually happens in the UK. I believe the sales are reported in Ireland.
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
Amazon being based in Ireland is just one of the many benefits of the EU Single Market.
Membership of the SM does not prevent nations within it from changing their laws and taxation system to stop - or at least curtail - this sort of abuse.
How does the British government tax an Irish company with servers in Ireland selling into the UK?
Legislate the use of Internet Service Provider. If that is in the UK, the customer must be in the UK.
Through legislation, you can do anything. No way will it be against the rules of the Single Market. Every other country bar Ireland will change their tax rules anyway.
Because Amazon "claims" very little sales actually happens in the UK. I believe the sales are reported in Ireland.
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
Amazon being based in Ireland is just one of the many benefits of the EU Single Market.
Membership of the SM does not prevent nations within it from changing their laws and taxation system to stop - or at least curtail - this sort of abuse.
How does the British government tax an Irish company with servers in Ireland selling into the UK?
If goods are shipped from Ireland that is problematic. But they are not. And problematic is not impossible.
Others have already presented viable alternatives downthread - and I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax accountant, and I know my limits! - so I'll leave it there.
Why would BoE raise interest rates in a recession?
4 per cent interest rates - wouldn't that be seen as average for the 300 years pre 2008.
A drop of one third in house prices would take them back to 2012 levels in London - how did we cope then?
Of course it's not the 2012 level of house prices that would be problematic, it's the rapid 30% decline that would a) effectively freeze the housing market for a few years (why buy if prices are falling?) and b) cause a rash of repossessions.
But I am sure you knew that already.
Edit: My 4,000th post and I managed to f*ck up blockquote! Now fixed
Because Amazon "claims" very little sales actually happens in the UK. I believe the sales are reported in Ireland.
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
Amazon being based in Ireland is just one of the many benefits of the EU Single Market.
Membership of the SM does not prevent nations within it from changing their laws and taxation system to stop - or at least curtail - this sort of abuse.
How does the British government tax an Irish company with servers in Ireland selling into the UK?
Legislate the use of Internet Service Provider. If that is in the UK, the customer must be in the UK.
Through legislation, you can do anything. No way will it be against the rules of the Single Market. Every other country bar Ireland will change their tax rules anyway.
Sounds like a good idea - can you send it to Philip Hammond? (Or maybe John McDonnell might be a better bet?)
Because Amazon "claims" very little sales actually happens in the UK. I believe the sales are reported in Ireland.
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
Amazon being based in Ireland is just one of the many benefits of the EU Single Market.
Membership of the SM does not prevent nations within it from changing their laws and taxation system to stop - or at least curtail - this sort of abuse.
How does the British government tax an Irish company with servers in Ireland selling into the UK?
Legislate the use of Internet Service Provider. If that is in the UK, the customer must be in the UK.
Through legislation, you can do anything. No way will it be against the rules of the Single Market. Every other country bar Ireland will change their tax rules anyway.
So everyone in the EU selling services will be in Ireland. And those who aren’t already will move there.
This stuff is genuinely complicated as unlike Google and Facebook, Amazon isn’t making a lot of profit anywhere as they are constantly expanding their business.
One of the major advantages of Brexit will be the UK taking up its seat at the WTO, which is probably the best forum to discuss the new generation of very large companies.
Apparently Theresa May is Lord Halifax "trying to cut deals with the enemy over the water" so we need BoJo to be our Churchill...
It is a truth universally acknowledged amongst Leavers that whoever has any dealings with the EU betrays the cause, no matter how Eurosceptic they started out. For some reason I've never understood, the obvious explanation - that when you get into the detail, things are a bit more complicated and the economic considerations more awkward than the Leavers thought - never ever seems to occur to them.
It is a truth universally acknowledged amongst Leavers that whoever has any dealings with the EU betrays the cause, no matter how Eurosceptic they started out. For some reason I've never understood, the obvious explanation - that when you get into the detail, things are a bit more complicated and the economic considerations more awkward than the Leavers thought - never ever seems to occur to them.
"For some reason I've never understood"
I assume that's a rhetorical flourish, because I'm 99.999% certain you're smarter than that.
Comments
If they did, May’s government would fall. She’s very likely to make it a confidence vote.
In any case, I think those would be fair value for Sterling in the case of no deal. As I said, the stabiliser effect would help stave off a prolonged and deep recession.
Last time I checked their approach was to say they wouldn’t touch the SD with a bargepole, which in my view just angers voters more.
That hasn’t happened.
Given Javid is now Home Secretary and Hunt Foreign Secretary they are also rapidly running out of the ability to use the 'name recognition' excuse if they do not improve their ratings with Tory members and voters and the public and against Corbyn fast Boris will be unstoppable and Mogg I expect would back him too
https://www.thelocal.se/20180626/in-depth-the-shifting-sands-of-swedens-immigration-debate
Plus a welcome boost for African farmers.
That’s one heck of a journey you’ve made.
If there’s one thing that I think has been proven over the last 10 years, it’s the benefits of having our own freely floating currency and independent macroeconomic policy.
We were supposed to be at parity with the dollar by now.
Sorry, I don’t share it. In fact, I doubt he’d even make the final two and might even fall out in round one. But, if you disagree, feel free to lap up my money on Betfair.
Getting the Euro means that you'll then lock in the almost-always-wrong exchange rate forever; leaving it is extremely challenging.
See: Greece, Italy, Spain for examples.
If the SD are acceptable to the UK Tories why not the Social democrats and Moderates?
Tony Blair did something similar when he agreed to have a reduced UK rebate in exchange for vague proposals by the EU to change the Common Agricultural Policy (which never happened).
And also import substitution by UK manufacturers and services.
Given the polling and the history that Alastair notes of polls tending to overstate the populist right (contrary to previously received wisdom), I'd agree with his implicit assessment that SocDems should be favourites. IMO, the current mid-prices of evens for SweDems and 2.32 for SweDems are back-to-front.
Having said all that, we're in danger of boiling frog syndrome with respect to the far/populist right. It is not at all a healthy state of affairs for any populist party to be winning 25% of the vote, whether or not they finish top, when prior to the 2010s they'd never received more than 3% at a general election.
Economists eh? Cuh.....
Make England Great Britain Again or vice versa.
There we go.
Why would BoE raise interest rates in a recession?
Amazon reinvests its income in expansion and new ventures which reduces its profit. Politicians are always berating companies for not investing. When like Amazon they do, it reduces profits and politicians complain that they pay less corporation tax. Cake and Eat it?
That said, the SD (who are handicapped by their openly fascist roots) have been trying to move towards the centre, and as with the AfD (and the ex-communist Linke on the left) in Germany it's forseeable that a time will come when they're seen as part of the normal landscape, like the Danish People's Party.
To keep a lid on imported inflation.
We are heading for stagflation.
Obviously, innovation and change is intrinsic to a market economy and that should generally be welcomed but the tax structures need to keep up with that change, whether it be in how businesses interact with customers, or whether that be in how businesses structure their internal corporate behaviour. At the moment, the distorting effects of the tax code is giving Amazon an unfair advantage and that needs to be changed.
One possibility would be to do away with business rates altogether and switch to a reformed Corporation Tax that incorporates elements of both profit and turnover. Obviously, such a change would have an impact on prices charged to customers but that, if done sensitively, should be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
(a) the transfer charge is just enough to make the UK almost exactly break-even.
(b) the foriegn entities are in a low-tax jurisdiction.
Short-version: expansion and investment, my arse.
4 per cent interest rates - wouldn't that be seen as average for the 300 years pre 2008.
A drop of one third in house prices would take them back to 2012 levels in London - how did we cope then?
Common sense would say that Tory MPs would realise what she is trying to do and remove her before completion of th negotiations. That uncertainty would probably increase our negotiating power ahead of the deadline.
Common sense does not seem to prevail with Brexit though!
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitism-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-jewish-holocaust-survivor-abuse-a8474846.html
Stagflation. That has been predicted for the UK by Blanchflower and his other idiot economist mates for years.
I'd expect the Social Democrats to come first, the Swedish Democrats second, the Moderates third. Hitherto, all the other parties have treated the Swedish Democrats as pariahs, which helps them, as they don't have to take any hard decisions in government (Wilders' support fell away sharply when he supported a VVD government).
There have been noises on the part of the Moderates that they could work with the Swedish Democrats. If the Moderates, Swedish Democrats, and Christian Democrats won a majority of the seats between them, I could see the Swedish Democrats offering supply and confidence to the Moderates and KD's.
Whoever their accountants (and lawyers) are, they are worth every penny they earn.
EDIT: are you actually calling Amazon UK an SME!?!
Some kind of turnover tax will have to come in for this kind of dodge.
Would anyone be able to link to Amazon in the UK if the ISP was also not in the UK ?
I don't think TND has cottoned on to it being an exercise in "What if..." What if you put a weird selection of inputs into the BoE model - what happens? A smart journalist would have quizzed the Governor on the likelihood of these things all occurring at once.
I mean, I can plug Labour 70%, Tories 10%, LibDems 15% into Baxter. You might want to ask me how that might come about.
Through legislation, you can do anything. No way will it be against the rules of the Single Market. Every other country bar Ireland will change their tax rules anyway.
Others have already presented viable alternatives downthread - and I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax accountant, and I know my limits! - so I'll leave it there.
But I am sure you knew that already.
Edit: My 4,000th post and I managed to f*ck up blockquote! Now fixed
He's cost England the match.
This stuff is genuinely complicated as unlike Google and Facebook, Amazon isn’t making a lot of profit anywhere as they are constantly expanding their business.
One of the major advantages of Brexit will be the UK taking up its seat at the WTO, which is probably the best forum to discuss the new generation of very large companies.
I assume that's a rhetorical flourish, because I'm 99.999% certain you're smarter than that.