politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A tale of twelve cities. The perplexing underperformance of Br

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A tale of twelve cities. The perplexing underperformance of Britain’s second tier

The red deer’s mating habits are an exemplar of Darwinian selection.  Every autumn virile stags, their veins coursing with testosterone, compete to claim the right to the herd’s females.  The battles can be fearsome, sometimes even deadly. The victor, the alpha male, then claims the right to father the next generation, thus perpetuating his genes.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

First like a sneaky fucker.

FrancisUrquhart

Second like England in the rugby.

brokenwheel

FPT:

If the Coronavirus cannot be contained and the issue rumbles on, this year's primary/election season may well again be dominated by the twin issues of healthcare and borders/societal control, ramped-up to 11 on the dial. This probably helps the hard left Democrats, and Trump.

RobD

Thanks, Alastair.

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

Second like England in the rugby.

We should leave the England rugby team in France, this has been an embarrassing performance.

We are Italy in disguise.

Cyclefree

That’s a really interesting header. Thank you.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Second like England in the rugby.

We should leave the England rugby team in France, this has been an embarrassing performance.

We are Italy in disguise.

Now come on, you’re not *that* bad.

They were just embarrassing yesterday. Waste of sixty quid, that was.

HYUFD

The main reason is London is the financial services centre of Europe and that boosts both it and the surrounding home counties and Edinburgh is the financial centre of Scotland.

The quickest way to close the gap between London and other English and Welsh cities would be to get a basic trade deal for goods post Brexit that excludes financial services but that would only be as a result of weakening the city of London mainly rather than boosting those other cities beyond where they already were

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Second like England in the rugby.

We should leave the England rugby team in France, this has been an embarrassing performance.

We are Italy in disguise.

Now come on, you’re not *that* bad.

They were just embarrassing yesterday. Waste of sixty quid, that was.

Yesterday was the most embarrassing performance by a side from Rome since the Battle of Cannae.

ydoethur

‘The red deer’s mating habits are an exemplar of Darwinian selection. Every autumn virile stags, their veins coursing with testosterone, compete to claim the right to the herd’s females. The battles can be fearsome, sometimes even deadly. The victor, the alpha male, then claims the right to father the next generation, thus perpetuating his genes.’

How on Earth did I guess @AlistairM wrote this just from that first paragraph?

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1224000347645063174?s=20

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

‘The red deer’s mating habits are an exemplar of Darwinian selection. Every autumn virile stags, their veins coursing with testosterone, compete to claim the right to the herd’s females. The battles can be fearsome, sometimes even deadly. The victor, the alpha male, then claims the right to father the next generation, thus perpetuating his genes.’

How on Earth did I guess @AlistairM wrote this just from that first paragraph?

I said to him on Friday this opening was up there with his buggered Turkish conscript opening.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Second like England in the rugby.

We should leave the England rugby team in France, this has been an embarrassing performance.

We are Italy in disguise.

Now come on, you’re not *that* bad.

They were just embarrassing yesterday. Waste of sixty quid, that was.

Yesterday was the most embarrassing performance by a side from Rome since the Battle of Cannae.

Could have been worse too, if the ref hadn’t disallowed that try.

First time I’ve ever heard a Welsh crowd cheer when the opposition get the ball.

First time I’ve seen them leaving early, too!

NorthernPowerhouse

Manchester is on a roll, in a way not seen since its growth in the 19th century. We dont need to worry about the core cities, its the 'key cities' we need to have an eye on. The smaller ones who are really struggling with demographics.

NorthernPowerhouse

TheScreamingEagles said:

First like a sneaky fucker.

Surely if you were first, you are the alpha male?

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Second like England in the rugby.

We should leave the England rugby team in France, this has been an embarrassing performance.

We are Italy in disguise.

Now come on, you’re not *that* bad.

They were just embarrassing yesterday. Waste of sixty quid, that was.

Yesterday was the most embarrassing performance by a side from Rome since the Battle of Cannae.

Could have been worse too, if the ref hadn’t disallowed that try.

First time I’ve ever heard a Welsh crowd cheer when the opposition get the ball.

First time I’ve seen them leaving early, too!

I saw the Welsh crowd leave early in the 90s when England teams used to hammer Wales like 60 - 20.

Luckyguy1983

ydoethur said:

‘The red deer’s mating habits are an exemplar of Darwinian selection. Every autumn virile stags, their veins coursing with testosterone, compete to claim the right to the herd’s females. The battles can be fearsome, sometimes even deadly. The victor, the alpha male, then claims the right to father the next generation, thus perpetuating his genes.’

How on Earth did I guess @AlistairM wrote this just from that first paragraph?

You're a bit slow on the uptake, I knew it was him from 'The perplexing underperformance of Br'.

However, I am still going to read it.

NickPalmer

Interesting piece, very entertainingly written.

I do think that London has squeezed out opportunity from the others in one sense. If you have a business that is anything to with either Government or the financial markets (plus probably a range of other sectors concentrated in the capital), you more or less need to be near London. I work for a charity whose main objective is to influence public policy; it would be cheaper to move to, say, Liverpool, but it would be much harder to be effective. That's a special case, of course, but there must be thousands of such cases relating to core London activities.

Which doesn't help directly, but it bears out Alastair's thesis that cities need to have a focus, to be clearly best at something. Once that happens, businesses and jobs related to it will move to it.

Sandpit

FrancisUrquhart said:

Second like England in the rugby.

Only because there isn’t a third or fourth on the rugby.

DavidL

Just a fantastic piece of work Alastair. Well done.

MrEd

Very interesting article Alastair, thanks.

On the topic, I will throw an idea out there which may help, namely that these cities should reintroduce their own stock exchanges with the aim of using local capital to invest in local businesses. A number of these cities used to have them until the stock exchanges were consolidated together in 1973. Not only could these exchanges be used to promote local investment in the regions but they would also create a ripple effect in services such as accountancy and legal work just as happened with London and Edinburgh.

Jonathan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-51341735

isam

Isn't the success of cities something to do with the Pareto Principle?

MarqueeMark

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Second like England in the rugby.

Only because there isn’t a third or fourth on the rugby.

There's fifth and sixth overall....

EPG

The end of German competition should be good for the relative position of core cities specialising in domestic and non-EU manufactures, at the expense of exporters to the EU, especially in services. Belfast excluded, of course, because it will now be semi-detached. The bigger question is given free trade within GB, why not exploit the benefits of the giant London market in business services? Even tier-two firms are staffed by professionals who have worked in some of the world's most complex and challenging businesses. My proposed solution was to tax London profits more heavily if you want to even out this geographic advantage, but a lot of people wilted from the idea. Similarly, many people who want to level the UK don't actually want an inheritance tax to deal with the unequal distribution of property. When talk is cheap and people don't say what they mean, is it a mug's game to talk about politics?

NorthernPowerhouse

Jonathan said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-51341735

fakity fakity fake....

Luckyguy1983

Interesting header again. This is building up to be a nice portfolio of Alastair Meeks on this topic. London and Edinburgh have quite a few other things in common not mentioned here. Big tourist cities, capital cities, big seats of culture, big seats of learning. I suspect their success lies in a combination of these factors. Hard to replicate elsewhere. Free ports paired with enterprise zones could help, along with big investment in infrastructure and renewable energy.

Luckyguy1983

MrEd said:

Very interesting article Alastair, thanks.

On the topic, I will throw an idea out there which may help, namely that these cities should reintroduce their own stock exchanges with the aim of using local capital to invest in local businesses. A number of these cities used to have them until the stock exchanges were consolidated together in 1973. Not only could these exchanges be used to promote local investment in the regions but they would also create a ripple effect in services such as accountancy and legal work just as happened with London and Edinburgh.

That's a very interesting idea.

EPG

NickPalmer said:

Interesting piece, very entertainingly written.

I do think that London has squeezed out opportunity from the others in one sense. If you have a business that is anything to with either Government or the financial markets (plus probably a range of other sectors concentrated in the capital), you more or less need to be near London. I work for a charity whose main objective is to influence public policy; it would be cheaper to move to, say, Liverpool, but it would be much harder to be effective. That's a special case, of course, but there must be thousands of such cases relating to core London activities.

Plus publicists, corporate lawyers, defamation lawyers, venture capitalists, accountants, management consultants and change managers. That list is limited to business services where I think London is #1 or tied #1 in the world, not just Europe, let alone GB. If your global strategy dictates regular use of any of these people, are you going to set up shop in Belfast? That's the London network effect of elite firms which could be fairly taxed, albeit at the cost of opportunities for small businesses in Newham or Tottenham - a trade-off that people seem very happy to make nowadays.

MarqueeMark

C'mon England!

Theuniondivvie

Is the choke about to come?

Fra 24 - May 14

Malmesbury

HYUFD said:

The main reason is London is the financial services centre of Europe and that boosts both it and the surrounding home counties and Edinburgh is the financial centre of Scotland.

The quickest way to close the gap between London and other English and Welsh cities would be to get a basic trade deal for goods post Brexit that excludes financial services but that would only be as a result of weakening the city of London mainly rather than boosting those other cities beyond where they already were

What about the following deal for the EU?

All UK pensions above a certain "Rich barsteward level" would have their "excess" invested in special EU bonds. The money would be used by the EU as they saw fit to invest in European development.

In return we get financial services and fish.

I'm quite sure that the the well off would view this as a noble investment.

SandyRentool

So the graph demonstrates that since the 2008 crash the rest of the country has been subsidising the London fat cats to an even greater extent.

Andy_JS

In the early 1960s Birmingham and Coventry were more prosperous than London.

EPG

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

FrancisUrquhart

MarqueeMark said:

C'mon England!

Its the hope that kills you...

another_richard

Does that graph take into account population changes ?

NickPalmer

Two interesting new US polls:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2020-battleground-tracker-what-could-happen-in-iowa-monday-2020-02-02/

uses a mixture of Iowa polling and large-sample projections from the national demographics (hmm) to show a good deal about second preferences. Biden does well from these, though his supporters are not as certain as other candidates.

The other poll shows Biden's firewall in South Carolina apparently crumbling with Steyer (yes, Steyer) making deep inroads into the black vote:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6824.html

How many of us are green on Steyer, eh?

speedy2

A reminder, Bernie Sanders filled a Stadium last night in Iowa:
https://twitter.com/RichLowry/status/1224014192925192192

malcolmg

SandyRentool said:

So the graph demonstrates that since the 2008 crash the rest of the country has been subsidising the London fat cats to an even greater extent.

greedy barstewards are sucking the life out of the rest of the UK

YBarddCwsc

SandyRentool said:

So the graph demonstrates that since the 2008 crash the rest of the country has been subsidising the London fat cats to an even greater extent.

We have seen the kind of person whom London aids and abets with its criminality and tax evasion. Isabel dos Santos.

London lawyers & accountants & consultants play an important role in facilitating laundering. London is the international centre of kleptocracy and tax evasion.

London and its criminal classes got fat. Meanwhile, a third of Angolans get by on less than two dollars a day. And Meeks pontificates about how London "over performs".

TheScreamingEagles

Who says VAR ruins the atmosphere at football grounds?

Luckyguy1983

YBarddCwsc said:

SandyRentool said:

So the graph demonstrates that since the 2008 crash the rest of the country has been subsidising the London fat cats to an even greater extent.

We have seen the kind of person whom London aids and abets with its criminality and tax evasion. Isabel dos Santos.

London lawyers & accountants & consultants play an important role in facilitating laundering. London is the international centre of kleptocracy and tax evasion.

London and its criminal classes got fat. Meanwhile, a third of Angolans get by on less than two dollars a day. And Meeks pontificates about how London "over performs".

Indeed. The question is, how do our other cities become international centres of kleptocracy and tax evasion?

Floater

And a similar terror attack in Belgium.......

The new normal....

Cookie

On thread - ut would be interesting to know if this is just Britain. In general, the older the country, the greater the dominance of the dominant city. And England is old. The only real comparator is France. Russia is also old, and dominated by Moscow - St. Petersburg in second place, but of course St. Petersburg had its spell as the capital. Spain has Madrid and Barcelona, but Barcelona is analagoud to Edinburgh and Glasgow rolled into one.
I don't know what we can conclude from this in terms of how to address core city underperformance though.

bunnco

There's a really simple explanation. The data tries to measure growth. And most of these [Labour] cities are completely developed-out to their boundaries. They can't really grow much more than the business rates baseline. The growth is happening in the 'overspill' leafy [Tory] districts next door, where there are lots of greenfields. But the cities don't want to pollute their Social Paradises with Tory Councillors.
So there's an impasse.

The solution of course is to inflate these 'Core Cities' to include their neighbouring districts. But Labour's 2016 'Nottingham Declaration' means this is resisted. So they'll continue to under-perform.

Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

Cookie

bunnco said:

There's a really simple explanation. The data tries to measure growth. And most of these [Labour] cities are completely developed-out to their boundaries. They can't really grow much more than the business rates baseline. The growth is happening in the 'overspill' leafy [Tory] districts next door, where there are lots of greenfields. But the cities don't want to pollute their Social Paradises with Tory Councillors.
So there's an impasse.

The solution of course is to inflate these 'Core Cities' to include their neighbouring districts. But Labour's 2016 'Nottingham Declaration' means this is resisted. So they'll continue to under-perform.

Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

I'm not sure I agree with this. Manchester's economy performs better than that of Oldham, Tameside, Bolton etc; Liverpool outperforms Knowsley, Wirral, etc. and Birmingham outperforma the Black Country.

HYUFD

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

Philip_Thompson

Cookie said:

bunnco said:

There's a really simple explanation. The data tries to measure growth. And most of these [Labour] cities are completely developed-out to their boundaries. They can't really grow much more than the business rates baseline. The growth is happening in the 'overspill' leafy [Tory] districts next door, where there are lots of greenfields. But the cities don't want to pollute their Social Paradises with Tory Councillors.
So there's an impasse.

The solution of course is to inflate these 'Core Cities' to include their neighbouring districts. But Labour's 2016 'Nottingham Declaration' means this is resisted. So they'll continue to under-perform.

Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot

I'm not sure I agree with this. Manchester's economy performs better than that of Oldham, Tameside, Bolton etc; Liverpool outperforms Knowsley, Wirral, etc. and Birmingham outperforma the Black Country.

I'd like to see some stats on that and whether its GDP per capita or GDP growth.

Warrington has had a lot of growth in recent years which is definitely related to being overflow from Liverpool and Manchester.

Luckyguy1983

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

Really doubt that Hy. Interesting perspective though.

tlg86

Apologies if this point has already been made but...

You’d have thought the great financial crisis would have poleaxed Britain’s great financial centres. The opposite is true: both London and Edinburgh have widened the gap.

Given they all got bailed out by the tax payer, no, I wouldn't have expected London to suffer from the financial crisis.

HYUFD

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

Really doubt that Hy. Interesting perspective though.

Thanks. However I just cannot see the votes to win a general election on a low tax, low spend on public services, low regulation, relatively open to immigration ticket, which is why neither the Tory nor Labour leaderships have committed to it

isam

tlg86 said:

Apologies if this point has already been made but...

You’d have thought the great financial crisis would have poleaxed Britain’s great financial centres. The opposite is true: both London and Edinburgh have widened the gap.

Given they all got bailed out by the tax payer, no, I wouldn't have expected London to suffer from the financial crisis.

The Visible hand to the rescue!

Luckyguy1983

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

Really doubt that Hy. Interesting perspective though.

Thanks. However I just cannot see the votes to win a general election on a low tax, low spend on public services, low regulation, relatively open to immigration ticket, which is why neither the Tory nor Labour leaderships have committed to it

Oh, I agree. I think we'll continue with a very mixed system. People are in no way prepared to look at jungle capitalism. But hopefully there are ways the free market principles can be applied successfully. I just don't think we'll ever rejoin the single market. We are an independent, free trading, seafaring nation. We've just returned to the norm.

BigRich

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

kinabalu

HYUFD said:

Thanks. However I just cannot see the votes to win a general election on a low tax, low spend on public services, low regulation, relatively open to immigration ticket, which is why neither the Tory nor Labour leaderships have committed to it

But drop that liberal immigration from the ticket if Singapore is the model. You can't go waltzing in there. Then you have yourself an offering that is solid gold Golf Club and revolving bow tie. That's your base.

HYUFD

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

Really doubt that Hy. Interesting perspective though.

Thanks. However I just cannot see the votes to win a general election on a low tax, low spend on public services, low regulation, relatively open to immigration ticket, which is why neither the Tory nor Labour leaderships have committed to it

Oh, I agree. I think we'll continue with a very mixed system. People are in no way prepared to look at jungle capitalism. But hopefully there are ways the free market principles can be applied successfully. I just don't think we'll ever rejoin the single market. We are an independent, free trading, seafaring nation. We've just returned to the norm.

We won't return to the single market while the Tories are in power no, if Starmer became PM though we would be back in the single market in 5 minutes

HYUFD

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

HYUFD

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Thanks. However I just cannot see the votes to win a general election on a low tax, low spend on public services, low regulation, relatively open to immigration ticket, which is why neither the Tory nor Labour leaderships have committed to it

But drop that liberal immigration from the ticket if Singapore is the model. You can't go waltzing in there. Then you have yourself an offering that is solid gold Golf Club and revolving bow tie. That's your base.

It also requires cuts to NHS spending etc, which is why again it will never win a general election here even with the immigration controls Singapore has

matt

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

“I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP“

All that says to me is that you don’t have a clue but you have firm opinions.

RobD

matt said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

“I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP“

All that says to me is that you don’t have a clue but you have firm opinions.

That report demonstrated why it wouldn't work here. Workers in Singapore work far more hours than in the UK.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

BigRich

RobD said:

matt said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

“I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP“

All that says to me is that you don’t have a clue but you have firm opinions.

That report demonstrated why it wouldn't work here. Workers in Singapore work far more hours than in the UK.

Singaporean workers may chose to work more hours, but that will be in part because in Singapore if you want to work full time you can find such a job, but in the UK at lease some of the people working part time are doing so because they can not find the full time jobs that they would prefer.

I also note over double the income per person and only a modest increase hours worked.

Wulfrun_Phil

"Birmingham is well connected by road, rail and air."

No, it's not. The West Midlands is anything but well connected.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/transport/2020/01/27/how-hs2-billions-could-be-spent-on-our-region/

"The productivity of the West Midlands is a third lower than an equivalent city such as Lyon in France. He said this was directly linked to the difficulty workers had in travelling through the region to and from work. He adds: “Work would have probably already started earlier had it not be for difficulties experienced in implementing Network Rail’s investment programme since 2015. “In a sense many of these projects have already been identified and a number are probably already, or close to so-called 'shovel ready' status. As both the local network, the national network and any high speed network are all attempting to offer connections to apparently the same economic hubs and population centres there should not be a any conflict of objectives, provided everyone can identify them. “The most urgent problem are the severe pressures being experienced across the Midlands on commutes to/from the principal cities and towns of the region. For instance, during the rush-hour the effective economic catchment area of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which the OECD estimate should be 1.9 million people, shrinks from 1.3 million to 900,000. “The inadequacy of current local transport infrastructure is severely compromising productivity.”

HYUFD

Dominic Cummings wept at 11 pm last Friday after being overcome with emotion as Brexit arrived

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/career-psychopath-dominic-cummings-weeps-as-his-dream-comes-true-n7256j0b8

speedy2

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

It's not complicated, Singapore and other small countries only need the HQ of a large multinational or two to be at the top in GDP per capita.

That's why London in theory has been doing very well with all the money coming in and out of the accounts of big multinational companies headquartered there.

BigRich

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

Being a city state is defiantly an advantage, but one that can be mimicked by heverly devolving the functions of government to sub national units, Switzerland being the best example.

Philip_Thompson

As it stands 2nd placed Manchester City are closer in points to 14th place Crystal Palace than 1st placed Liverpool.

tlg86

Philip_Thompson said:

As it stands 2nd placed Manchester City are closer in points to 14th place Crystal Palace than 1st placed Liverpool.

In 2003-04, Liverpool, who finished fourth, were closer in points to the bottom than to the top. That could apply to second place by the end of this season.

HYUFD

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

Being a city state is defiantly an advantage, but one that can be mimicked by heverly devolving the functions of government to sub national units, Switzerland being the best example.

London has a bigger population than Switzerland let alone the UK and devolving power to Holyrood etc has hardly led to a smaller state

TheScreamingEagles

Philip_Thompson said:

As it stands 2nd placed Manchester City are closer in points to 14th place Crystal Palace than 1st placed Liverpool.

You give Liverpool a 21 point deduction they are still in first place.

You give Man City a 21 point deduction and they are in 14th place.

You give fourth placed Chelsea a 21 point deduction and they end up in the relegation zone.

You give Manchester United a 21 point deduction and they are bottom of the league.

DecrepiterJohnL

Austerity. Northern cities were hit hardest by George Osborne's spending cuts.
(Admittedly, you still need to treat London as a special case, as it was also clobbered.)
https://www.ft.com/content/0debe1cc-20ac-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d

BigRich

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

Being a city state is defiantly an advantage, but one that can be mimicked by heverly devolving the functions of government to sub national units, Switzerland being the best example.

London has a bigger population than Switzerland let alone the UK and devolving power to Holyrood etc has hardly led to a smaller state

In the short run, maybe not, but it has let Holyrood experiment with slightly different way of running health and other areas, it hasten worked, in normal circumstances this would lead to that party being voted out and a different approach being tried. this has worked in Switzerland and other federal states, in Scotland, with the impedance issue never far away it may not work.

I was thinking of more power to city and county level mostly, but you point is valid

Gabs3

The number one driver of long term economic success is talent. There is a cyclical effect where you don't have the jobs so the talent leaves so the jobs don't come so thr talent leaves. And of course, there is only limited talent to go round so London does cause a disadvantage to Birmingham as young Brummie grads go to London.

The answer to this conundrum is to a) make the core cities better places to live for young graduates for a much lower cost of living than London (nicer commercial areas, parks, bars, restaurants, pop up shops etc) and to b) have additional skilled migrant visas for places outside London.

TheScreamingEagles

By my reckoning, if Liverpool win their next five matches and City drop points in their next five matches then Liverpool will win the title at Everton.

Oh my days.

speedy2

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

Being a city state is defiantly an advantage, but one that can be mimicked by heverly devolving the functions of government to sub national units, Switzerland being the best example.

Switzerland is also a small neutral country neighbouring 200 million people.

For a country as large as Britain to emulate Switzerland it will need to be the preffered banker of 1.75 billion people, basically the old British Empire.

If there is a country that Britain should emulate its Germany.

EPG

The Singapore strategy and the EEA strategies are very different, but at least they make sense as a set of successful future outcomes for the UK. One could not say that the current government is pressing ahead for either. Dom may want to invest lots of money in Manchester mathematicians, but it is being spent on 19th century railways and 20th century hospitals.

malcolmg

matt said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

“I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP“

All that says to me is that you don’t have a clue but you have firm opinions.

Bit like the majority on here

malcolmg

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

SNIP, bollox anyway

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

Being a city state is defiantly an advantage, but one that can be mimicked by heverly devolving the functions of government to sub national units, Switzerland being the best example.

London has a bigger population than Switzerland let alone the UK and devolving power to Holyrood etc has hardly led to a smaller state

In the short run, maybe not, but it has let Holyrood experiment with slightly different way of running health and other areas, it hasten worked, in normal circumstances this would lead to that party being voted out and a different approach being tried. this has worked in Switzerland and other federal states, in Scotland, with the impedance issue never far away it may not work.

I was thinking of more power to city and county level mostly, but you point is valid

What bollox, SNP have vastly improved Scotland compared to the London based sock puppet parties. health and other areas all better than rest of UK.

Philip_Thompson

TheScreamingEagles said:

By my reckoning, if Liverpool win their next five matches and City drop points in their next five matches then Liverpool will win the title at Everton.

Oh my days.

Very, very plausible given the respective form of the squads and the forthcoming fixtures. I posted this yesterday in Cyclefree's thread.

Philip_Thompson said:

Just had a look at the forthcoming fixtures for Liverpool and Manchester City and I think Liverpool will win the title officially by the end of March.

If Man City win their game in hand tomorrow and then the two clubs get the same number of points between now and the end of March then I believe Liverpool will need to avoid defeat away to Manchester City on 4 April to officially lift the title.

However look at the forthcoming fixtures.

Between now and the end of March:
Liverpool go Away to: Norwich City, Watford, Everton
Liverpool at Home host: West Ham, Bournemouth, Crystal Palace

Man City go Away to: Tottenham, Leicester, Manchester United, Chelsea
Man City at Home host: West Ham, Burnley

Looking at those fixtures City seem more likely to drop points before the end of March than Liverpool do.

Man City don't look currently like winning all 3 of Leicester, Manchester United and Chelsea away. Though probably just because of Leicester because Manchester United and Chelsea don't look like taking points either.

BigRich

speedy2 said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

Being a city state is defiantly an advantage, but one that can be mimicked by heverly devolving the functions of government to sub national units, Switzerland being the best example.

Switzerland is also a small neutral country neighbouring 200 million people.

For a country as large as Britain to emulate Switzerland it will need to be the preffered banker of 1.75 billion people, basically the old British Empire.

Switzerland does have banks, yes, they are important, but the perception that Switzerland is only about banking is overstated, Switzerland has a significant industrial sector, lots of 'teck' company and tourism, it's much more balanced and we have the advantage that we have access to the sea!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland#Economic_sectors

malcolmg

speedy2 said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.

and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.

But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

It's not complicated, Singapore and other small countries only need the HQ of a large multinational or two to be at the top in GDP per capita.

That's why London in theory has been doing very well with all the money coming in and out of the accounts of big multinational companies headquartered there.

The laundering helps a lot

HYUFD

malcolmg said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

SNIP, bollox anyway

I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.



For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

Being a city state is defiantly an advantage, but one that can be mimicked by heverly devolving the functions of government to sub national units, Switzerland being the best example.

London has a bigger population than Switzerland let alone the UK and devolving power to Holyrood etc has hardly led to a smaller state

In the short run, maybe not, but it has let Holyrood experiment with slightly different way of running health and other areas, it hasten worked, in normal circumstances this would lead to that party being voted out and a different approach being tried. this has worked in Switzerland and other federal states, in Scotland, with the impedance issue never far away it may not work.

I was thinking of more power to city and county level mostly, but you point is valid

What bollox, SNP have vastly improved Scotland compared to the London based sock puppet parties. health and other areas all better than rest of UK.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/5052495/snp-nicola-sturgeon-nhs-waiting-times-general-election/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-criticised-on-education-following-world-rankings-hz09ctstq

malcolmg

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

Obviously an English only survey

TheScreamingEagles

But as a seasoned Liverpool fan I still won't be confident even if we're 29 points ahead with ten games to go.

RobD

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

Obviously an English only survey

Or it could just be the fact there are a lot more of them...

EPG

I think bunnco is right about the core-cities boundaries red herring. If a lot of Manchester business parks are excluded, then we are not comparing like with like because some of those city boundaries are so small compared to Greater London.

malcolmg

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

BigRich said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.

SNIP, bollox anyway

For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=2125&fbclid=IwAR0Z-Xd78SkiRspDuVlASN6O2sjPcuUd557XSzdi46GWlALB9QIaxZ9rFAY

Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole

Being a city state is defiantly an advantage, but one that can be mimicked by heverly devolving the functions of government to sub national units, Switzerland being the best example.

London has a bigger population than Switzerland let alone the UK and devolving power to Holyrood etc has hardly led to a smaller state

In the short run, maybe not, but it has let Holyrood experiment with slightly different way of running health and other areas, it hasten worked, in normal circumstances this would lead to that party being voted out and a different approach being tried. this has worked in Switzerland and other federal states, in Scotland, with the impedance issue never far away it may not work.

I was thinking of more power to city and county level mostly, but you point is valid

What bollox, SNP have vastly improved Scotland compared to the London based sock puppet parties. health and other areas all better than rest of UK.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/5052495/snp-nicola-sturgeon-nhs-waiting-times-general-election/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-criticised-on-education-following-world-rankings-hz09ctstq

Scottish NHS beats England on every count , we don't wait hours for ambulances , , waiting times significantly lower. Unionist bollox on the education as well , any sane person reading the numbers can see the headlines are hand picked bollox.
Keep your Tory lies for dummies.

speedy2

In the absence of the Selzer Iowa poll here's a new one from Civiqs:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20200202_IA_2.pdf

Sanders 28 +4
Warren 21 +2
Buttigieg 15 -2
Biden 15 nc
Klobuchar 8 -3

FF43

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

Kippers are God's food and we should all be eating British/Scottish herring instead of imported cod. Particularly now the continent is cut off, along with the only major market for British caught fish

On topic, really interesting article. London is a globalisation winner, while some of the other cities are globalisation relative losers. Despite increasing protectionism in the world, globalisation is still the way to success.

AramintaMoonbeamQC

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

Obviously an English only survey

Southerners.

No true Lancastrian would have put Steak and Kidney Pudding that low down.

malcolmg

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

Kippers are God's food and we should all be eating British/Scottish herring instead of imported cod. Particularly now the continent is cut off, along with the only major market for British caught fish

On topic, really interesting article. London is a globalisation winner, while some of the other cities are globalisation relative losers. Despite increasing protectionism in the world, globalisation is still the way to success.

Just need government to spend inordinate amounts of cash in the city, do laundering and tax evasion and you can flourish.

FF43

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

Obviously an English only survey

Southerners.

No true Lancastrian would have put Steak and Kidney Pudding that low down.

I would happily eat anything* on that menu if it's made from decent ingredients, properly cooked.

* edit not a massive Scotch egg fan.

rcs1000

BigRich said:

Singaporean workers may chose to work more hours, but that will be in part because in Singapore if you want to work full time you can find such a job, but in the UK at lease some of the people working part time are doing so because they can not find the full time jobs that they would prefer.

I also note over double the income per person and only a modest increase hours worked.

Singapore is also ideally physically position to benefit from the growth of China. It's an extremely well positioned port to act as the conduit for goods coming from all over Asia, and then going on to the rest of the World. We're next to a much slower bloc, and we're not connected particularly well by road and rail to the economies of the EU, so it's hard to see how we could benefit from being the transport hub of Europe.

Singapore has extremely high savings rates, while the UK has possibly the lowest in the developed world. That's a major, major difference. I struggle to see how you could get from our current situation (negligible savings, economy supported by domestic consumption) to a Singaporean situation (extremely high levels of saving, economy supported by exports) without an extremely painful transition period.

Singapore has a genuinely outstanding education system. We have an OK one. Hopefully we can make it better, but this is a multi-decade thing.

I would love to see us become more like Singapore. But it would require that the entire structure of the British economy changed to be more like Germany or Switzerland. (I.e., we'd move away from domestic consumption and towards exports.)

Yet the fiscal policy of the government, i.e. running extremely loose policies, will boost domestic demand and worsen the the UK's imbalances. Structural things like infrastructure or trade agreements count for little if the government and people continue to spend more than they earn.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

By my reckoning, if Liverpool win their next five matches and City drop points in their next five matches then Liverpool will win the title at Everton.

Oh my days.

For an added bonus, if you only need a point, let them nick a draw and watch their fans go wild at denying you all three, while you celebrate winning the league in their back yard

viewcode

FF43 said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

Obviously an English only survey

Southerners.

No true Lancastrian would have put Steak and Kidney Pudding that low down.

I would happily eat anything* on that menu if it's made from decent ingredients, properly cooked.

* edit not a massive Scotch egg fan.

Liver and onion? Eeeurgh...

malcolmg

FF43 said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

Obviously an English only survey

Southerners.

No true Lancastrian would have put Steak and Kidney Pudding that low down.

I would happily eat anything* on that menu if it's made from decent ingredients, properly cooked.

* edit not a massive Scotch egg fan.

Rather a Scotch egg than faggots or jellied eels personally

malcolmg

viewcode said:

FF43 said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1223933148326780929?s=20

Obviously an English only survey

Southerners.

No true Lancastrian would have put Steak and Kidney Pudding that low down.

I would happily eat anything* on that menu if it's made from decent ingredients, properly cooked.

* edit not a massive Scotch egg fan.

Liver and onion? Eeeurgh...

cooked properly liver and onions are superb, if you have quality product and don't overcook it is brilliant.

FF43

EPG said:

The Singapore strategy and the EEA strategies are very different, but at least they make sense as a set of successful future outcomes for the UK. One could not say that the current government is pressing ahead for either. Dom may want to invest lots of money in Manchester mathematicians, but it is being spent on 19th century railways and 20th century hospitals.

I don't think Singapore does work. Firstly because it would only apply to London and would leave the rest of the country behind, which is the opposite of what we want to achieve. Secondly, Singapore positions itself as a bastion of stability in a fragmented part of the world. It serves Asia but is aloof from it. That doesn't apply to a detached UK towards a highly organised Europe.

Tim_B

If you're taking an interest in the Iowa Caucuses, then you might like to know that there is a Democratic Caucus in Scotland tomorrow. Colyn Burbank is holding one at his apartment in Glasgow. According to the NYT he's expecting 9 delegates, but the beeb says 23. Who new Glasgow was such a hotbed of Iowans?