***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 52 *****
==============================================================
As it happens:-
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 24 Jul 18 at 02:01
|
worth posting Bromptonaut last post from the now closed thread...
Brexit - Bromptonaut
>> I must say if anyone doesn't deserve to be called an idiot its Rees-Mogg.
He's got a confidence and knowledge consistent with his background as son of editor of the Times schooled at Eton and Oxford. Because of that he looks and sounds clever just like Boris, David Cameron and the late Tam Dalyell.
On Brexit he's either ignorant or fundamentally dishonest. Pretty much any reputable economist says a crash out on WTO terms will be a disaster for ordinary people's jobs and living standards. He flies in face of accepted scientific fact on climate change so it's no real surprise when he does so in other areas.
My own take is that he wants a much more vigorous form of capitalism where workers' rights are reduced, there is at best only a minimalist safety net for health or social security and taxes, at least for the better off, are dramatically lowered. His own class benefits and the rest can lump their lot.
He and many of his ERG compatriots think hard Brexit will make their Utopia look like some sort of recovery.
In a darkly ironic sort of way there's an analogy with revolutionary Communism.......
|
>>On Brexit he's either ignorant or fundamentally dishonest.
My impression of him is that he is an honest man and fundamentally decent.
Neither of those shield him from being wrong.
However, there is little chance of common ground between you and him Bromp, not much between him and me to be honest.
But I don't think he's a liar.
|
He would undoubtably consider himself an honest and fundamentally decent human being, probably a very nice person to have as a next door neighbour.
However, despite his intellect, he allows his religious beliefs to influence his thinking, hence his views conflict with accepted scientific fact on climate change so it's no real surprise when he does so in other areas . His views on abortion are absolutely out of step with modern values.
No chance of common ground with me.
|
I agree with you. What makes him decent, I think, is that he is open about his thinking.
|
>> I agree with you. What makes him decent, I think, is that he is open
>> about his thinking.
>>
Yes, he's an honest bloke who doesn't really follow his religious beliefs unless they benefit him. After all, how Christian is it to allow the country to be so funked up that he can prosper whilst the majority get poorer or even sicker because of the reduction in benefits etc?
BTW, don't forget his nice new Ireland office, just to protect him in case of Brexit!
|
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, don't forget his nice new Ireland office, just to protect him in case of
>> Brexit!
>>
>>
www.youtube.com/watch?v=httYzdk2lYo
|
>> >> BTW, don't forget his nice new Ireland office, just to protect him in case
>> of
>> >> Brexit!
>> >>
>> >>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=httYzdk2lYo
Classic political set up. Member of public with a good basic point put up against articulate politician. It's Ferrari's programme FFS.
A fund manager who wasn't mitigating against Brexit, with all its potential downsides, would be negligent.
|
|
Rees-Mogg is the only one I can think of who seems to exhibit potential statesman-like qualities. Having said that, Dominic Raab looks promising, making the right leave-determination noises but backed up with expertise in international law and Foreign Office experience.
|
>> My impression of him is that he is an honest man and fundamentally decent.
Have you met him personally?
That's an open question, not a dig. Various of your posts over years suggest you move in sort of circles where you get to see public figures at closer quarters than most of us.
|
>>Have you met him personally?
Certainly not in any meaningful way.
I just read this;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Rees-Mogg
I know it's Wikipedia and therefore one has to be careful not to place too much faith in it, but reading this I'm pretty sure we wouldn't get on very well.
It makes interesting reading. Kind of suggests he'd be an absolute nightmare as Prime Minister especially with the mutual support he and Farage seem to have for each other.
Going back to a comment you recently made, it's difficult to see who would find much common ground with him. Quite clearly a clever bloke though.
|
Sounds like we are really desperate if you believe we are threatening not to pay the divorce bill of €39Bn if we don't get a trade deal. I hope the EU tell us where to go. We should not be issuing threats.
LL I really hope the walk home next March is nice.
|
>> We should not be issuing threats.
>>
You mean that ironically of course?
|
Smokie;
"I would ask that posters save themselves and me some time by refraining from being unnecessary insulting or patronising"
You are quite correct of course and it is absolutely a failing of mine. It's just that when ignorant people perpetuate incorrect information and then are incapable of understanding the correct information and so resort to stupidity it makes me irritated.
Of course I should let it go and keep shut, and you'd think by this age I'd have learned, but sadly I frequently fail.
Just delete the stuff I write that get's too close, you'll get no argument from me.
|
|
I still think Boris should have become Prime Minister.
|
>> I still think Boris should have become Prime Minister.
>>
Just to see the oaf wear wellington boots to EU meetings?
|
You don't count, you do it on purpose.
And anyway, Boris is a huge disappointment to me. He always used to quite impress me in the days before he mattered much. I encountered him once or twice and thought him worth listening to.
His behaviour and speeches around the Referendum and immediately after quite surprised me. And since then he's been shockingly awful. I guess that's what happens when you put something insubstantial under pressure.
He was here recently. He said all the right things, but somehow it comes across as disingenuous and manipulative now. Even his greetings seemed false.
IMO he needs to go a long way away and preferably quite quickly. Although now he's not Foreign Secretary at least he's not likely to bother us out here again.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 21 Jul 18 at 19:46
|
I'll put it here because it will be seen by more.
If Toyota has already stopped making the Avensis...what has replaced it in Derby in terms of what cars they produce? Just some Auris models?
|
Instead of giving £40 billion to EU, why don't the govt distribute it among 65 million citizens of UK?
40 billion / 65 million = £615 in every person's pocket
Instantly hard brexit will win support of people (including remainers).
Last edited by: movilogo on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 11:01
|
Other than the downgrading of UK's debt, further devaluing of the pound, and increased repayment costs of our £2,000,000,000,000 national debt.... and that your £40bn bonanza would simply be added to out debt as it doesn't exist.
About as retarded as Gordon Brown's plan to give money to kids to 'kickstart a saving mentality'.
Mark's right.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 11:27
|
I feel you are trolling Movi, deliberately making provocative statements and having a laugh at the responses. I can't believe that you really MEAN some of the things you say.
Anyway I'm not bribed that easily, and if I was I'm not that cheap for sure! And if there were money to be spent I'd sooner it went on more worthy causes than the UK population - e.g. NHS, policing, education, social care - the usual suspects.
|
>> Instead of giving £40 billion to EU, why don't the govt distribute it among 65
>> million citizens of UK?
>>
>> 40 billion / 65 million = £615 in every person's pocket
>>
>> Instantly hard brexit will win support of people (including remainers).
Are you actually real?
|
I think other than "I know better than you" fighting, a forum should be used for exchanger of ideas.
While you may find it specific suggestion bonkers, it is not without merits entirely.
Some reports suggest that every person would be worse off. There is one below.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-money-income-wto-rules-oliver-wyman-a8457951.html
Reading it, I see no proof of calculation how the number was obtained - just some expert said so.
At least in my statement I have demonstrated a simple arithmatic how this can be achieved.
In our lifetime we are seeing a lots of Black Swan events.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
In technology, economics, politics everywhwere we are like to experience things which once everyone thought impossible.
Finland did trial universal income.
Benefits are ways of distributing wealth.
Dividends are profit distribution among shareholders. A country can do the same (at least one off).
All the news of sky would fall over upon Brexit, are based on some fudged calculation. The every family £1000 worse can be counterattacked by every family 2 (or 3) * £615 better off type argument.
The govt prints money all the time. That does increase inflation. The £40 billion handout to EU is to buy deals which would make money flow to economy. The money distributed across UK citizens would achieve same effect (people will start buying things - hence pumping money to economy).
GDP going down is not always bad thing. If there is net negative migration and GDP does down, then Per Capita Income might even go up!
While you may laugh at some of my comments, large corporations and govt often say even more bonkers stuff but just because they are big people assume they are talking sense.
For once common people have challenged established thinking (i.e. anti-EU Brexit sentiment) and so called experts can't manage anything anymore.
|
So they create £40bn which is eaten up by inflation on other things, as well as devaluing the £, I suspect we would all be poorer.
Dividends btw are usually derived from earnings (profits) so not comparable.
GDP going down is not a bad thing, ha, ha, ha ha ha ha! It would lead to a reduction in tax income, a reduction in investment etc.
Perhaps all recent immigrants should be asked to volunteer to leave to help the economy. Who knows, we could even bung them a few thousand to help them on their way ;-|
Then if they don't volunteer, well, they can be forced out anyway. That's all of them btw, including those with a permanent leave to remain etc. That would make it better for all the white original Anglo Saxons who probable immigrated from Europe in the first place anyway!
(Of course it's all mad.)
Last edited by: Driver on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 12:39
|
>>www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-money-income-wto-rules->>oliver-wyman-a8457951.html
>>Reading it, I see no proof of calculation how the number was obtained - just some expert said >>so.
Have you read the actual Oliver Wyman paper or just the Indy's report of it.
|
Yes I did. Here is the link.
www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/v2/publications/2018/july/Brexit_Costs_Up_Prices_Up.pdf
I have Googled the paper myself as it was not included in the news article (which was only for headline grab).
I am personally involved in writing some similar consultancy papers (not Brexit related though) and I know in lot of cases it involves several subjective weightage factors. Often there are no ways of verifying these numbers either.
Olvery Wyman is not a very well known consulting firm e.g. not in same calibre of McKinsey, BCG, Bain, PWC, E&Y etc.
Consultancy firms produce papers based on who pays them - the true analysis what they do in-house (on Brexit impact, they all are doing it) is very unlikely to be shared in public domain.
|
>> Yes I did. Here is the link.
>>
>> www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/v2/publications/2018/july/Brexit_Costs_Up_Prices_Up.pdf
>>
>> I have Googled the paper myself as it was not included in the news article
>> (which was only for headline grab).
I know where the link is. Any press report like that sends me scuttling off to find the source document. Same when there's outrage at a.n.other decision of a court of law.
What do you say to Wyman's example of tomatoes?
|
>> What do you say to Wyman's example of tomatoes?
That is a wrong question to ask. That paper claims tomato price will go up. This is based on WTO tariff and trade barrier without being in CU/SM.
However, in real life we don't isolate one item examine separately. It has to happen on all items flowing in and out of economy.
There will be lots of items where EU will face similar tariff when export goes out of UK. We know UK has trade deficits with EU.
To analyze what will be economic consequences of Brexit, one would need to consider all possible parameters and accurately predict the relationship among them. This would require supercomputers and even then possibly the outcome will be simply wrong.
Any attempt to cancel Brexit citing economic difficulty (the way Brexit negotiation going on) will be perceived as not doing it and thus won't be accepted by public. The remain supporters (govt/MPs) are still trying on this route. This will push people to further right and both labour and conservative might break up just to create Brexit and anti-Brexit parties.
I think rather than trying to stop Brexit, remainers have a better chance just to encourage clean breakup from EU and ask a new referendum 5-10 years later. If UK manages well outside EU then people will prefer that way and if not can rejoin back to EU.
Trying something might be easier than trying reasons for not doing it.
Now the question "why would EU allow us to join back later" is not relevant at current context. This is something again no one can predict.
|
>> That is a wrong question to ask. That paper claims tomato price will go up.
>> This is based on WTO tariff and trade barrier without being in CU/SM.
The WTO is not a great place to be right now, in the new brave trade wars trump era
|
>>All the news of sky would fall over upon Brexit, are based on some fudged calculation.
Do you accept that new regulatory bodies will have to be set up and others considerably strengthened?
Do you accept that many agreements will have to be renegotiated?
Do you accept that such negotiation will require new expertise, manpower and goodness knows how much consulting and legal support?
Do you accept that the new agreements will cause increased ongoing expense? (UKCAA for example).
Do you accept that many of these changes will cause considerable expense to the companies in that industry?
Do you believe that these changes will impact aviation, telecommunication, broadcasting, agriculture, finance, automotive, transport, and many more?
So where do you believe all that money will come from?
>>I am personally involved in writing some similar consultancy papers
That seems unlikely and quite difficult to believe. You have neither the fluency of language nor the quality of thinking to be able to write such a paper. You write illogical arguments which frequently show a fundamental lack of understanding and a lack of thought.
Your arguments, speculation and questions over Brexit, for example.
Perhaps you are much younger than I thought and quite junior, that would perhaps explain the type of thinking you exhibit. Perhaps you mean you have contributed to papers being written by others?
You would never be trusted by a consultancy firm to author such a paper for customers.
>>Consultancy firms produce papers based on who pays them - the true analysis what they do
>> in-house (on Brexit impact, they all are doing it) is very unlikely to be shared in public
>>domain.
Of course their analysis would never be shared in the public domain if it had value. That, fundamentally, is the basis of the business.
They do research, they analyse, they conclude, and then they share that work with those prepared to pay them for it. If one has paid for that analysis, or one is involved in such things, then the information is available.
Otherwise, not. And quite clearly you sit in the "otherwise" camp or you would be much more informed than you are.
[Smokie; that's as polite I can get. I could have written that whole scree in about 3 words, so look how hard I am trying.]
|
>> you have neither the fluency of language nor the quality of thinking to be able to write such a paper.
But I do have the manners and decency of replying to the message and not attacking the messenger.
|
I phrased it as much as a critique or statement of fact amd as little like a personal comment as I could.
I am more than happy to accept any compatible rephrase that you can suggest.
|
|
P.s. you insult the remainers every chance you get. Hypocrite.
|
>> P.s. you insult the remainers every chance you get. Hypocrite.
To be fair though he does it generically rather than getting personal with you or me.
|
It was he who brought up his work of writing reports as somehow adding to his credibility. Since he brought the subject up, I see no reason why I should not critique it.
It was he who bought up the subject of personal insults as a bad thing, yet he who indulges in them all the time. Again, I see no reason why I should not critique his assertion.
Had he the wit to address the issues, then we could have focused upon them. But have you noticed how he, and especially Pat, never discuss the issues. Their approach is based upon making a baseless assertion and then whining abuse if their statement is refuted. Particularly if their assertion is shown to be naive and ignorant of the facts. Not ever do they come back with counterpoints or opposing evidence.
Considering how much time they spend commenting on the posting style of others, you would hope that they would have also paid attention to their own.
I often consider things I have written after the fact to make sure I understand how they fit into the chain of conversation. Would that they did the same.
Please note, no personal abuse here, no attacking of anybody, simply addressing the facts and issues.
|
|
I had regarded him as a high grade Fluffy :)
|
>>
>>
>> The govt prints money all the time. That does increase inflation.
>>
Not necessarily. Quantitative Easing hasn't , and despite dire warnings of inflation, hasn't the concern been that inflation has been too low?
It was suggested semi-seriously that helicoptering bundles of fivers over poorer areas would have been a better way of stimulating spending.
Simply handing out money is a time-honoured measure used by governments of the left and right. It tends not to be favoured by proponents of a managed economy because it gives a measure of control to individuals rather than the state, which can be relied upon to spend it wisely.
|
"Dominic Raab: We can get Brexit deal done by October"
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44913982
I can only assume that I am misunderstanding what he means by "deal".
For example, "we'll carry on with all EU Rules, regulations, terms and conditions for 5 years" is a deal and one that could be done by October.
It is not possible for us to have agreed the deal the enaction of which will meant that we are actually separate from the EU by March. Not even close.
Absolute and instant separation would cause many UK industries simply to stop. Anythign with an international regulator, anything involving taxation or stock movement, etc. etc. would have to stop. Instantly. The EU [including NI] border would have to be closed.
That's a hard exit.
Now, that obviously is not going to happen. So I assume that this "deal" that can be completed by October will be a statement of a series of intents and timescales, not an actual resolution.
That would mean that come March 2019 we will not be members of the EU, but that pretty much everything else would remain unchanged.
Individual areas will then have an intent and a timescale to adhere to.
e.g. Aviation must agree a new regulatory structure and reach agreements with individual countries with 5 years.
However, that will then put the negotiation and progress within the control of the industry. And the industry doesn't want Brexit. So what do we think will happen there?
I'd guess they'll negotiate and agree something which can't be called membership but is otherwise identical and will follow all rules and regulations of the EU in order for those agreements to continue as is.
Most industries are similar in that regard.
So, the only thing that I can think that can be "agreed"£ by October is a series of intents, some guiding words and a set of timescales.
Does anybody think that anything else/more can be achieved by October?
This is one time where it will look like a duck, sound like a duck, but it won't actually be a duck.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 16:24
|
>> Does anybody think that anything else/more can be achieved by October?
On my understanding we need two things by October:
(a) As NoFM says some sort of statement of intent/timescale as to what a trade deal might look like
(b) A transitional agreement to cover the period of the timescale above.
October is Important becuase of the timescale needed for the EU countries individually to agree the treaties.
We though we had (b) in place in December but it still seems to be logjammed by the UK/Ireland land border question.
Without a transitional agreement we crash out.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 16:36
|
>>Without a transitional agreement we crash out.
Which, by the way, those much vaunted supporters of Brexit, the muppets Dyson and Bamford, both previously said would be good for the UK.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 16:40
|
EU negotiators say it's possible but would need a major shift in UK politics:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/22/article-50-extension-unlikely-without-shift-in-uk-politics-say-eu-officials
They're absolutely right but I don't thin message will go down well with Brexiteers....
|
An excellent article from the Guardian for once, thanks for the link.
All I can see is a train coming down the tracks.
The closer the UK gets to accepting membership in all but name, the greater our chance of avoiding the train.
I am not sure that the electorate overall has the wit to appreciate that, nor that it is to the advantage of the media and certain politicians to acknowledge it.
I would guess that pondlife such as Farage knows exactly what the UK is going to be forced into, thus he is keeping his distance so that he can decry it when it happens and make personal capital out of the failure, for failure it will surely be.
May will have to compromise on the jurisdiction of the ECJ, Freedom of Movement and the NI border. I wonder what else?
What did people vote for? Well I've no real idea, but I'm pretty sure that "Brexit - membership in all but name" will both fit the bill and also be what they get.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 21:25
|
>> May will have to compromise on the jurisdiction of the ECJ, Freedom of Movement and the NI
>> border. I wonder what else?
Everything probably.
Shame Pat does not share her idea for the NI/ROI border problem. She's thought this through before voting in 2016 to leave therefore must have thought what we should do. We cannot have a border therefore continued membership of customs union and single market is the obvious solution. And therefore we still have freedom of movement of people and come under ECJ jurisdiction.
Maybe Pat et al are happy with that? I thought the aim was to leave the EU which she might have voted to join it's precursor in the 70s.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 21:33
|
The NI/ROI border has to be re-established or Brexit ain't Brexit.
Period.
A non-border would mean all EU citizens and trade could simply trundle into NI. Once there it's simple to travel to the mainland.
Unless you have a border between NI and rUK.
Which won't go down in any shape or form with TM's paid henchmen aka DUP.
The ongoing vacillation around the reinstatement of the Ni/RoI border, in my mind means BEANO is inevitable for pretty much the rest as well.
Sad state of affairs.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 21:50
|
This was written a year ago, almost exactly. Gosh, how things have changed.
Not.
www.ft.com/content/afc39739-d889-3f11-a9f2-f41258408c69
|
>> The NI/ROI border has to be re-established or Brexit ain't Brexit.
Yup, every road over NI/ROI border has, post Brexit, same status as Dunkerque/Calais>Dover and needs same checks.
|
I don't really see why anybody thinks anything other than a hard border is possible.
Were we not whining about soft borders allowing illegal immigrants into the EU region not so along ago? Wasn't that one of the arguments against some of the newer proposed members that their borders were not secure? Was that t*** Farage not one of those spouting just those arguments?
Yet somehow we believe that an exception can be made for an EU soft border with the outside world?
|
>> I don't really see why anybody thinks anything other than a hard border is possible.
Except the implications for the Good Friday agreement/Belfast Agreement.
But for Brexit I agree there needs to be a hard border.
>> Yup, every road over NI/ROI border has, post Brexit, same status as Dunkerque/Calais
Which was not the case even prior to the Good Friday agreement.
... There will be trouble.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 22:59
|
>> Which was not the case even prior to the Good Friday agreement.
>>
>> ... There will be trouble.
UK/ROI had a common travel area before and even during troubles and before 1973 when both joined EEC/EU.
Brexit puts us in unexplored territiry....
|
Whilst I think we should have remained within the EU, now that we are on route for Brexit, it should be a wholehearted affair like JRM and BJ want, then the electorate that voted them in can suffer as they see their standards of living drop and their vital services diminish.
Of course, some newspeak at the time will ensure that everyone believes all is rosy and it was the right thing to do and those outside of the fishbowl will see the truth.
|
>> Whilst I think we should have remained within the EU, now that we are on
>> route for Brexit, it should be a wholehearted affair like JRM and BJ want,
During referendum JRM was probably honest enough to say he wanted wholehearted Brexit, albeit being disingenuous about spelling out the implications and costs for ordinary people.
BJ otoh gave impression he'd settle for a deal like Norway and EEA status.
Only later, driven by ambition and fear of Mail and red-tops reference to any attempt to procedualarise Brexit (ie Gina Miller's court case) and anything short of WTO exit as treason, did he become a proselytiser of 'no deal'.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 23:30
|
Johnson's strategy for the referendum was to pick what he thought would be the losing, but significant, side which he thought would be leave, so that he could put himself forward as the people's champion and become PM.
The fact that Leave won rather booggered up that plan and his strategy, hence his unpredictability since.
Now he's chosen "no deal" as his current driver. I wonder; is he dumb enough to try to repeat a tactic after it has already, and quite recently, failed once?
Because as far as I can see, his overriding and dominating goal is to be PM. Anything else is secondary and subservient to that.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 22 Jul 18 at 23:49
|
>> Johnson's strategy for the referendum was to pick what he thought would be the losing,
>> but significant, side which he thought would be leave, so that he could put himself
>> forward as the people's champion and become PM.
>>
I have seen that film:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3y1QbkloLs
|
>> the electorate that voted them in can suffer as they see their standards of living drop and their
>> vital services diminish.
But I voted remain and did not vote Conservative in the last general election (or any). So what about me ;-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 23 Jul 18 at 00:27
|
Less GPs being imported (coinciding with a big shortage anyway) means I'll likely be a 'winner'.
I can get £700/day locumming without any difficulty.
Not in NoFM2R territory by an order of magnitude but a reasonable return nonetheless.
|
|
I wouldn't blame you but in my view that's where lots of NHS money goes IMO - to hiring in staff. I worked as an IT consultant (not NHS) of which the NHS has hundreds (more likely thousands), all on a good whack (admittedly not as good as e.g. banks but still not bad).
|
These figures won't quite add up, it's the wine you see. And trying to remember the difference between NHS UK, NHS England, HSHC, Total & FTE, and everything else etc. etc.
Just a bunch of stuff about NHS staffing levels which might interest you. (That means Smokie will spend the next week on Google trying to work out the detail behind this and whether or not the figures are correct)
The proportions are correct. No doubt Lygonos will be able to improve on my accuracy.
There are around 1.2 million members of staff in the NHS in England (not UK). (approx. 1m FTE)
50% of HCHS staff are medically/professionally qualified.
There are about 130,000 staff in GP surgeries in England, of which 34,000 [FTE] are doctors, not included in the HCHS figures. This does not include Locums. More than 90,000 of those staff are admin/clerical/non-clinical.
About 3% of the 1.2 million [NHS England] are non-clinical managers
In total In the NHS there are;
England 1.2m.
Scotland 160k
Wales 89k
NI 64k.
On top of that is optometry, dentisty, independent and private hospitals, and temporary staff.
Taking the England section (1.2million)
6%EU
4%Asian
2%African
8% something else.
Interestingly about 35% of Doctors took their primary medical qualification outside the UK.
There are no meaningful conclusions that can be drawn about staffing levels by nationality since the referendum since the figures just were not kept that accurately. Anything you read on that subject is essentially guess work.
There is no meaningful change in leavers/joiners by nationality. Not in number or proportion of the total.
Don't forget that since Blair's Government we have been actively recruited from other countries into midwifery, nursing and others which skews the figures a bit. That continued, escalated even, under Cameron also.
Bank staff are not included in NHS figures but represent around 160,000 FTEs. As I understand it bank staff are healthcare professionals. The NHS spends about £3bn of it's £120bn on Bank staff, though that includes all fees, services and expenses as well.
The parliamentary briefing paper I have in front of me does not detail how many NMNC temporary staff are used, and that would include IT people - called "Lot 5 Temporary Workers" strangely enough. That comes from the NMNC agreement categorising various staffing types.
I'll dig into the IT staffing position when I have a bit of time later in the week. I'm interested myself now.
NB: If I've made any howlers, sorry. Lygonos can correct me and I'll beg to a moderator to edit the post.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 23 Jul 18 at 02:37
|
>>I can get £700/day locumming without any difficulty.<<
I earned in excess of that yesterday for a shorter day than you!
Not bad for a lorry driver who hasn't the intelligence or knowledge to hold a discussion on here, is it?
Pat
|
>> I earned in excess of that yesterday for a shorter day than you!
Good day at the bookies doesn't count ;-)
The figures on NHS staffing are in the right ballpark.
GP numbers are trickier as there is no actual database of numbers, how many sessions each GP works, ethnicity/gender, or even individual earnings.
The data that does exist is largely from workforce surveys that are not universally completed.
The data that does exist (in Scotland) shows GP numbers are slightly lower (FTE) over the past 5 years.
tinyurl.com/yczkm2ho
This is due to more part-time workers (inc me: I do 4 days/week now and intend to cut to 3 in the next 6 months), retirements, and some GPs moving into other fields (academia, appraisal, hospital posts, Board governance and the like), and good old fashioned emigration (Australia/NZ mostly with a few to Canada in my experience).
|
Brexit is NOT the catalyst for this, but is going to add to the pressures that have been adding up for the past decade or so.
Locum/bank rates are the best indicator of staff shortage I can think of, as they are mostly linked to supply and demand.
5 years ago GP locums would expect around 360-450 per day, now 500-750 is typical.
Some out-of-hours shifts locally have been offered at £180-200 an hour (£60-80 more typical and historically was £45-65) due to how thin on the ground GPs have become. (and it would take more than 200 an hour to get me to work a Saturday night!)
|
>> >> I earned in excess of that yesterday for a shorter day than you!
>>
>> Good day at the bookies doesn't count ;-)
>>
....that's a rather more palatable guess than mine.......
;-)
|
I earned in excess of that yesterday for a shorter day than you!
>>
>> Not bad for a lorry driver who hasn't the intelligence or knowledge to hold a
>> discussion on here, is it?
Got any jobs going?
|
>Not bad for a lorry driver who hasn't the intelligence or knowledge to hold a discussion on here, is it?
Not bad at all. I could not improve on your phrasing in any way.
|
One good effect of Brexit already happening is lowering of house price.
www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/16/uk-house-price-slump-blamed-on-surge-in-sellers
I guess it will go down further. Already market is stagnating.
Yes, I do consider lower house price a good thing.
|
Lower house prices are , in general, a good thing.
However that one is probably less down to Brexit than it is to buy to let exits and current supply exceeding demand.
Don't think very many things can be put down to brexit at this stage.
In my view it will be much more of a medium term, ie 3-5 years to get a realistic view of how much it all cost / gained and even then we will not all agree on whether it was worth it.
|
I've had a quick scout round for evidence supporting Movi's claim that BREXIT is the cause. Can't find the cause in the current BBC report but in a different one one from June BREXIT is given the credit, saying "buyers’ “firepower†[is] limited by the squeeze on household incomes that followed the Brexit Referendum."
www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/london-house-prices-falling-at-fastest-rate-in-almost-a-decade-but-theyre-still-50-per-cent-higher-a121716.html
So I'm not so sure that's a positive really. And I'd like stability on house prices but my feeling is a large drop (and many falling into negative equity) is not really that desirable.
|
|
I think, at the moment, there are opinions on what is down to Brexit and what is not, I think realistically very few things are really attributable, one way or the other, however learned and detailed the report because facts and statistics behind any report are pretty scarce on the ground.
|
The Guardian article doesn't really say what Movi suggests.
Issue is more houses coming onto market without a corresponding rise in buyer numbers. Not (yet) clear if actual prices are falling. The survey is done by Rightmove and is based on asking prices, these appear to be falling as sellers try and chase a deal.
Only later, when the Land Registry publishes numbers for actual settled prices at completion, will it be possible to say prices are falling. As of now though LR numbers still show rises. There are also huge regional variations. London is flat/falling but in other places the market remains buoyant - decent places round my way still sell in days.
Brexit may be a factor, particularly in London where foreign buyers and the particular consequences of Brexit for the financial sector are in play. Doubt it makes much difference in the North East.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 23 Jul 18 at 09:59
|
>> Doubt it makes much difference in the North East.
Until the turkeys in Sunderland get a nice Xmas present from Nissan and end up on the dole...
|
>> Until the turkeys in Sunderland get a nice Xmas present from Nissan and end up
>> on the dole...
>>
The North East are used to it and they are a fairly resilient bunch of people. In te 40 years since I lived there they have lost all kinds of large employers, from British Shipbuilders, NCB, to British Steel & dozens of others. From my last visit the balance of happiness / financial wellbeing does not seem to have changed much.
It will never be a hugely wealthy area but it is very unlikely to be a poverty area either.
A bit like the west of Scotland really
|
>> Doubt it makes much difference in the North East.
Agree. NE is very different market. Properties are still very cheap there (compared to SE). A large percentage of properties in NE are BTL type though.
Related news - lenders valuing house less than advertised price - may be due to impending price fall.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44202542
Last edited by: movilogo on Mon 23 Jul 18 at 10:21
|
>> Agree. NE is very different market. Properties are still very cheap there (compared to SE).
>> A large percentage of properties in NE are BTL type though.
Colleague of mine retires this week and is moving to a (former coal board) cottage near Bishop Auckland. IIRC they're paying under £50k but she said other places were being snaffled up for BTL.
>> Related news - lenders valuing house less than advertised price - may be due to
>> impending price fall.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44202542
Nothing new there, same thing happened to me in 1986 and again in 1991. Fortunately we had enough equity to bridge the gap.
|
>> >> Related news - lenders valuing house less than advertised price - may be due
>> to
>> >> impending price fall.
>> >>
>> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44202542
>>
>> Nothing new there, same thing happened to me in 1986 and again in 1991. Fortunately
>> we had enough equity to bridge the gap.
Agreed nothing new there. Valuers employed by the mortgage company are paid to safeguard the loan. They are always looking at what the house can sell for at auction. Undervaluation usually occurs at the onset of the downtrend in the 7 year cycle, sellers and estate agents are reluctant to accept its happening and overprice,
|
>> One good effect of Brexit already happening is lowering of house price.
Nothing to do with Brexit, House prices typically run to a 7 year up down cycle, with a continual upwards tend, we have just hit one of the natural cycles.
>> Yes, I do consider lower house price a good thing.
Assume you are not a home owner.
|
>> >> Yes, I do consider lower house price a good thing.
>>
>> Assume you are not a home owner.
>>
Why Z?
While I don't think anyone wants a collapse in the housing market, negative equity etc. I would have thought that most people would want to see the housing market, in general, be more about a reasonably priced place to live than something to make huge profits out of.
Even though some of us have already made huge amounts from our own homes.
|
>> >> >> Yes, I do consider lower house price a good thing.
>> >>
>> >> Assume you are not a home owner.
>> >>
>> Why Z?
Lets get one thing out in the open. No-one has a right to buy, its not a birthright. Home ownership has possibly been one of the biggest scourges of UK economy boom and bust since the 60's.
But going back to the original question, It was more a comment about the OP's lack of stake in whats happening in the UK.
And I know damn well that post Brexit, he will blame UK economic failure on "remoaners" sabotaging it.
|
>> Lets get one thing out in the open. No-one has a right to buy, its
>> not a birthright. Home ownership has possibly been one of the biggest scourges of UK
>> economy boom and bust since the 60's.
>>
Agreed, however, an increased level of home ownership, since say, the 60s, has been a positive thing in society terms, IMHO.
Getting it into perspective overall and sensible pricing would be a good thing for society as a whole.
Bit of thread drift, maybe home ownership could do with a separate thread.
|
"Nothing to do with Brexit,"
I can't be bothered to search for the source, but I'm sure I remember that immigration to the UK fell by c.100k pa since the referendum. That is 100k fewer people looking for roofs over their heads.
|
>> "Nothing to do with Brexit,"
>>
>> I can't be bothered to search for the source, but I'm sure I remember that
>> immigration to the UK fell by c.100k pa since the referendum. That is 100k fewer
>> people looking for roofs over their heads.
And that is nothing to do with it. None of them were house buyers
|
"And that is nothing to do with it. None of them were house buyers"
So they either rented from people who had bought houses, or they slept on the street. Goodness me, Zed, is the heat getting to you?
|
>> "And that is nothing to do with it. None of them were house buyers"
>>
>> So they either rented from people who had bought houses, or they slept on the
>> street. Goodness me, Zed, is the heat getting to you?
They rented houses already on the rental market. If we to believe your argument no more new houses would ever get built, or even some knocked down because we dont need them any more.
There is a housing stock, its not big enough Before, now or in the future.
Must be roasting out your way is all i can say.
|
According to ONS figures net migration to the UK from the EU in the year to September 2017 was 90,000. Down from 165,000 the year before So not quite 100k, but certainly up there.
Also, birth rates are down and death rates are up, causing a further slow down in our population growth. Apparently that's what a cold winter does for you.
|
>> Also, birth rates are down and death rates are up, causing a further slow down
>> in our population growth. Apparently that's what a cold winter does for you.
>>
Wait till next year and see what a hot summer and a world cup do for you:-)
|
The net migration figure still represents an increase in overall population, just not as many 000s extra year on year as in previous years.
Unless I've misunderstood it!!
|
>>The net migration figure still represents an increase in overall population
Yes.
[crap explanation follows]
However, if you think of housing demand as a tube with new demand turning up at one end, gradually flowing through bigger and bigger houses and then falling out of the market at the end, and then consider that even though there are still more and more people flowing through, the rate of increase has dropped.
That could potentially mean that the rate of accommodation coming onto the market at various points could exceed the rate of increase of demand.
e.g. The demand for £500,000 houses was increasing at 10 per month. The supply of such houses was also increasing at 10 per month.
If the demand next month only increases at 9, but the supply still increases at 10, there's a spare house.
So next month less houses must be built. If it happens on successive months, then there goes construction, confidence, prices etc. etc. etc.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 23 Jul 18 at 11:59
|
|
Pretty sure overall UK population is still growing but changes are subject to very significant regional variation. Certainly rapid growth here and lot of it migrants keeping our town's reputation as a logistics capital of UK afloat.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 23 Jul 18 at 12:00
|
>> Yes, I do consider lower house price a good thing.
That's a rather selfish point of view.
People who have high mortgages will be impacted by falling prices as negative equity will make it difficult for them to move.
If they cannot easily move, they may find it difficult to move to a new job.
A real house price slump will potentially impact the wider economy as there will be limited equity to lend against, resulting in it being more difficult for people to set up businesses etc.
Last edited by: Driver on Mon 23 Jul 18 at 11:39
|
Complicated thing, house prices.
I think lower house prices would be a good thing generally. However, actual house prices themselves are not the primary issue. It's the change which is a killer.
Falling house prices lower spending, confidence and construction. Rising house prices obviously the opposite.
Not that those things will drive the economy alone, but together with overall credit and interest rates they can certainly have a significant impact.
Mostly I agree with Commerdriver above [I think it was him]. We can see the activities being driven by Brexit, but I don't think much of the impact or consequence can be seen at this time, good or bad. What we're looking at is hints and clues.
Also, the impact will likely be a direction of travel rather than a huge jump in one direction or the other. A general deterioration over time, or improvement I guess.
I can't quite see how Brexit can have affected house prices at this stage unless from a lowering confidence in the economy perspective.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 23 Jul 18 at 11:52
|
>> Assume you are not a home owner.
Even as home owner I want house price to fall.
We can put house owners into 2 main groups - owner occupier and BTL-investment type
Then within each group, we can further distinguish between those upgrading vs downgrading.
Any owner-occupier upgrading, will see his property price down but he will be benefitted by his next house (which costs more and fallen further) becoming cheaper in comparison e.g. he might get £50k less for his current house but also paying £100k less for bigger house he's moving to.
Similarly for BTL investors trying to expand their portfolio, can buy more houses at lower price.
However, those who are downsizing or coming out of BTL/investment property market, will see a net loss.
>> That's a rather selfish point of view.
>> People who have high mortgages will be impacted by falling prices as negative equity will make it difficult for them to move.
Whether it is selfish or not depends on from whose perspective you are looking at. It can be argued that those who already own properties are not willing to make it easy for FTBs. They would say it is selfish that who own houses are making it harder for them to buy by wishing an even higher price.
A small number of people who bought at peak price and willing to remortgage when price is fallng, may see negative equity. But that's not end of the world. Any market correction affects some people. But falling price would be better for majority of people in the long run.
If people spend less on housing, they are going to spend more on other entertainment which would drive the economy up. High house price is affecting lots of industries which rely on people having spare cash to have fun with. With current high house price, very few people are having spare cash for fun.
|
I can't be bothered since you won't listen anyway, but your conclusions are nonsense.
Kind of justifying my points from yesterday.
|
You display complete lack of knowledge of the housing market. And economics as well. renders your "theory" as poor guesswork and ill informed speculation.
|
Companies altering contracts to ensure future disputes are litigated in EU rather than UK:
tinyurl.com/y9p62fqw (Law Society Gazette)
Dispute resolution/litigation is a decent earner for UK at present.
|
I think we'll see more and more of this. It's all part of BEANO.
We won't be members of the EU, but in order to continue their business then most industries will voluntarily sign up to he EU standards, processes and rules.
Imagine the EU rules of sausages; And the emotional Leavers were offended by this and trumped "make our bangers British" or some such nonsense. So we leave the EU.
However, a bunch of British sausage makers want to sell their sausages in the EU. They can only do that if they follow the EU standards and regulations. And so they do.
Now the British sausage maker is following the EU rules but as absolutely NO control over what those rules are.
Whether it is sausages, contract negotiation or anything else; we will still follow the EU rules.
|
>> However, a bunch of British sausage makers want to sell their sausages in the EU.
>> They can only do that if they follow the EU standards and regulations. And so
>> they do.
>>
>> Now the British sausage maker is following the EU rules but as absolutely NO control
>> over what those rules are.
No problem, we dont need to sell sausages to the EU, The USA have crap sausages, we can sell there.
Well we could till trump put a trade embargo on them.
I saw inanteresting interview today. One that stated The German manufacturers value the stability and certainty of the EU market more then the value of exports to the UK. Hence their focus is on maintaining the EU single market and not allowing the UK to dilute it.
|
Got a link?
p.s. You get that the sausages were merely an example, right?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 23 Jul 18 at 14:11
|
>> Got a link?
Nah it was a live interview from Berlin.
>> p.s. You get that the sausages were merely an example, right?
Of course.
But US sausages ARE shiesse. Big time.
Sausages is as it happens the very worse example you could have picked. Its a very very regional and national preference. As it happens for het very reason it was the very very worse example used by the Brexiteers.
|
I don't enter into Brexit discussions as a rule, but coincidentally, I have in the last five minutes turned to page 3 of the FT to find an article headed "North East Business optimistic about EU exit".
Blah blah, then:
"The North East voted heavily for Brexit in the 2016 referendum, with all but one of the 12 local authority areas coming out for Leave. In business circles, support for Brexit is particularly noticeable among those with a strong entrepreneurial and individualistic streak."
Then various MDs etc saying why they feel positive, including one who currently deals with Nissan.
All titchy companies I think, but there it is. Apparently not everyone thinks we are doomed. What do I know, I'm no businessman.
The article above it, funnily enough, is "Housing price growth slows as Brexit uncertainty weighs on confidence".
|
|
We should make our sausages German, i.e. prevent them being bulked out with cereal. I understand this practice is illegal there, or strictly limited.
|
|
Why should we enforce either upon the other? Why isn't it a choice?
|
|
I like Bratwurst Brötchen in a Berlin Christmas market, but for an english breakfast it has to be a british sausage, dont care what shiesse they put in it.
|
Brexit Discussion - Volume 51 - sherlock47
