The Labour Government

west didsblue said:
Haha.

All I’ve done is call you out on your faux outrage about a deal just because it was signed up to by a Labour government, even though most of it was negotiated by the previous government and even though you know absolutely fuck all about the background. It’s just another example of your total lack of credibility when discussing pretty much anything.

I think that’s enough on this topic. Now jog on.
Click to expand...
Has to resort to insults.
 
GeorgeR said:
The rate of the negative impact is diminishing in the next 10 years compared to the first 5 years but the overall negative impact is still increasing. According to those figures GDP still drops by 2.5% in those 10 years.
In other words the boat is still sinking, just not as fast as was. Hardly a success.
Click to expand...
The cumulative loss of GDP growth relative to a no Brexit scenario will continue to increase, but GDP isn’t dropping, it’s just rising at a slower rate. And the difference in positive GDP growth rates between a Brexit and no Brexit scenarios will narrow over time.

The boat isn’t sinking, it’s just not going as fast as it otherwise would.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Oh, so you are now saying you'd read the Agreement? Strange for you to have not mentioned that before. Perhaps it was an oversight.

And since you're so read up on the subject, what do you make of the Labour stating that the cost to the UK is £3bn to £4bn?

It would be interesting to see how you support that "fact", given that the aggregate sum of the payments is circa £50bn (assuming RPI at 3%) and then taking a 3% discounted cash flow = £9bn.

Or you can assume 2% indexation and a 2% DCF rate, and get £30bn gross and £10bn NPV. Any which way you cut it, the £3-4bn claim is a lie.
Click to expand...
If I comment on things I do tend to read up on them first rather than make claims only based on media reports.

In answer to the rest of your post, I’ve not looked into it nor do I intend to. All I know is that the government claims NPV is taken into account. Without more detail it’s difficult to make a judgment. Either way, the cost is spread over 100 years and the yearly amount is fairly insignificant in the scheme of things, whether it equates to £100m per year or £34m per year.

As for Lord Hermer’s supposed advice to Mauritius, all we know is he had one meeting with his opposite number in Mauritius and that he advised our own government of the international law aspects of the situation. Everything else is speculation unless you can show otherwise. All I could find was a load of frothing from the likes of the Mail, Telegraph and GBN, and some bizarre claims that he’s taking too much notice of international law.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Two things come to mind when I read reports about economic brexit impact. Firstly they never compare actual UK economic performance since leaving with other comparable nations.

And secondly if you spent years predicting dire economic consequences, it's hard to admit you were wrong. This especially seems so of most government departments and the civil service regardless of the area of expertise.
Click to expand...
There are two main approaches to these Brexit loss estimates, and they both have significant challenges, which is why they shouldn’t really be taken seriously. They’re illustrative (at best), rather than instructive.

The first approach is to construct what you might call a doppelgänger economy, by aggregating together a number of different countries which, together, have a similar economic structure to the UK. You then compare the growth rate of this doppelgänger economy to the UK and see if the UK growth rate has diminished relative to that benchmark post-Brexit. Obviously the issue here is that you are effectively attributing any UK shortfall to Brexit, which seems an unrealistic assumption when you think how COVID and then the war in Ukraine will impact different economies. Germany’s recent struggles following the loss of Russian gas show how misleading this can be.

The alternative method is to take a production function approach, and make assumptions around how Brexit might diminish UK productivity growth and/or the terms of trade (price of UK exports relative to the price of imports). This approach is more commonplace, but again the issue here is that you need to make some very bold assumptions around variables which are extremely difficult to forecast, and precisely isolating any Brexit impact isn’t really possible if the broader environment remains volatile.

The NIESR paper for instance assumes that Brexit will reduce the UK’s terms of trade by 1% over the long-term, but the surge in goods and energy price inflation which followed COVID and then Ukraine reduced the UK’s terms of trade by as much as 5% on some estimates. Likewise the OBR assume that Brexit will reduce productivity growth by a further, cumulative 2.4% over the long run. But this 2.4% figure is actually far smaller than most of the forecast errors surrounding the OBR’s five-year ahead productivity growth estimates, and so again it seems improbable that a precise figure can be attributed to Brexit.

Basically the more you look into these estimates, the less significance you attach to them.
 
Brewster's millions said:
There are two main approaches to these Brexit loss estimates, and they both have significant challenges, which is why they shouldn’t really be taken seriously. They’re illustrative (at best), rather than instructive.

The first approach is to construct what you might call a doppelgänger economy, by aggregating together a number of different countries which, together, have a similar economic structure to the UK. You then compare the growth rate of this doppelgänger economy to the UK and see if the UK growth rate has diminished relative to that benchmark post-Brexit. Obviously the issue here is that you are effectively attributing any UK shortfall to Brexit, which seems an unrealistic assumption when you think how COVID and then the war in Ukraine will impact different economies. Germany’s recent struggles following the loss of Russian gas show how misleading this can be.

The alternative method is to take a production function approach, and make assumptions around how Brexit might diminish UK productivity growth and/or the terms of trade (price of UK exports relative to the price of imports). This approach is more commonplace, but again the issue here is that you need to make some very bold assumptions around variables which are extremely difficult to forecast, and precisely isolating any Brexit impact isn’t really possible if the broader environment remains volatile.

The NIESR paper for instance assumes that Brexit will reduce the UK’s terms of trade by 1% over the long-term, but the surge in goods and energy price inflation which followed COVID and then Ukraine reduced the UK’s terms of trade by as much as 5% on some estimates. Likewise the OBR assume that Brexit will reduce productivity growth by a further, cumulative 2.4% over the long run. But this 2.4% figure is actually far smaller than most of the forecast errors surrounding the OBR’s five-year ahead productivity growth estimates, and so again it seems improbable that a precise figure can be attributed to Brexit.

Basically the more you look into these estimates, the less significance you attach to them.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed response.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Did you actually read Baroness Casey’s National Audit? If not, I suggest you do so.


Or perhaps the government's reponse, here:

www.gov.uk

Government response to the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse report

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Yes I have

This report was accepted by the Labour Party in June 2025 ... not by the Tories (my point)

Good to see that Burnham (Labour Mayor for Manchester) seems to be the only one acting on point 11 re out of town Taxis
 
metalblue said:
A wealth tax is a bad idea and being championed by someone twice rejected by the electorate.

However public finances are in a complete mess and getting worse under Labour so something needs to be done.

If I was Reeves I’d give it a proper roll of the dice. Pension funds in this country benefit from tax breaks and then off your fund managers trot and invest in non UK companies - I would bring forth a policy that mandated a certain amount of UK pension funds must be invested in UK companies/ government projects. The government projects pay back model could be along similar lines of PFI funding but with far less punitive terms but other models are available.

They could slsp mandate the wealthy invest a certain amount of their wealth in similar schemes rather than tax them, they don’t get less wealthy but do make their wealth available for use.

The pension one is likely to be the one that is politically the most palatable due to the tax breaks received.

I’d say that’ll bring a much needed boost to growth and help the government of the day with investment.
Click to expand...
This misses the point though of where wealth is really held. We sometimes view the wealthy as having some massive cashpot sat in bank accounts that is just ripe for taxation and pillaging but it dosn't exist. A generic wealth tax would be pointless, it needs to be far more purposeful and direct.

The wealthiest have all of their wealth in assets and these assets are not readily available for dipping in and out of at will. If somebody owns £10bn in land then the only option is to tax that land directly. Currently it's done following the sale which is a waste of time unless its sold which might be never and then there is the complicated issue of trusts and whatnot. Meanwhile the treasury gets nothing and that is how the rich plan their taxes.

Unfortunately we just need a really honest and frank conversation about untaxed wealth whether it's land or other more complicated assets. Labour have done this with farms which let's face it were indeed utilised by a number of wealthy people to avoid inheritance tax. There must be hundreds of loopholes such as this.

The problem ultimately is whether the Treasury is well resourced and clever enough to solutionise against these problems. Every single rich person will meanwhile have the weight of the big tax consultancies and lawyers behind them which the UK government doesn't have and can't afford.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
How wrong can you be ?

I see no need for a further enquiry as the 20 plus recommendations from the first enquiry (which cost £186 million and took seven years ) have not been implemented.

In your constant tirade against the Labour Party for initially refusing to hold a further enquiry (you appear to be solely focused on ''Muslim Rape Gangs'' rather than rape gangs in general ), do you ever stop to think why the Conservatives failed to take on board and implement the initial enquiry recommendations ?

My preferred outcome (rather than another enquiry which will take a few years cost another fortune and is just kicking the can into the tall grass ) would be to implement the initial recommendations and to monitor to make sure that they are effective.

To demand another enquiry is to simply vote for a delay.
Click to expand...
So which of those recommendations in the Jay report will bring to justice the historic perpetrators of these heinous crimes that escaped investigation because some in authority were more concerned with being labeled racist and civil unrest ? Which of those recommendations will hold to account those in positions of trust and authority who failed these children so badly ? Which of those recommendations will force the muslim community to accept some responsibility and speak out and ostracise this sick minority that shelters within it ? If those things can happen then maybe the victims can come forward and be supported and compensated for the failure of the state to protect them. Have you asked yourself those questions ? or do they not matter ?
The Jay report doesn't scratch the surface of the Pakistani Rape gangs despite 7 years and £186M - I wonder why that might be?
As for your conspiracy theory response to Miah / Recusant 9 claims in respect of Oldham council and the Pakistani rape gangs - Have you actually watched ? Checked other sources ? I doubt it. The Labour Party is up to its neck in this cover up as we will see.
How wrong can you be ? - You will see just how wrong you will be.

I get it that it must be hard being Starmer's lickspittle when he changes his mind / caves in to pressure so often and effectively throws you under the bus but just use your own eyes and own ears and make your own judgement , there was no way this enquiry wasn't going to happen. He might still limit its scope but the next government will turn every stone.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The cumulative loss of GDP growth relative to a no Brexit scenario will continue to increase, but GDP isn’t dropping, it’s just rising at a slower rate. And the difference in positive GDP growth rates between a Brexit and no Brexit scenarios will narrow over time.

The boat isn’t sinking, it’s just not going as fast as it otherwise would.
Click to expand...
Is that the Brexit summary?

You're going to need a smaller and slower boat...
 
west didsblue said:
If I comment on things I do tend to read up on them first rather than make claims only based on media reports.

In answer to the rest of your post, I’ve not looked into it nor do I intend to. All I know is that the government claims NPV is taken into account. Without more detail it’s difficult to make a judgment. Either way, the cost is spread over 100 years and the yearly amount is fairly insignificant in the scheme of things, whether it equates to £100m per year or £34m per year.

As for Lord Hermer’s supposed advice to Mauritius, all we know is he had one meeting with his opposite number in Mauritius and that he advised our own government of the international law aspects of the situation. Everything else is speculation unless you can show otherwise. All I could find was a load of frothing from the likes of the Mail, Telegraph and GBN, and some bizarre claims that he’s taking too much notice of international law.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I thank you for your non-emotive answer.

I'll be equally non-emotive in return. The figures payable are not in dispute. It's clearly laid out; £150m for the first 3 years, £120m for the next 10, and then £120 plus an annual indexation due to inflation every year following up to 99 years. We also have to give them £45m per year for the first 25 years to some development fund. And another 1-off payment of £45m in year 1. All of this is in black and white in the agreement.

Based upon this, the real cost to the government fully accounting for inflation over the 99 years is around £10bn, depending on what RPI you use. This is not speculation on my part. It's just basic accounting. I will provide the figures should you wish.

i.e. when Starmer said, "£101 million a year is the average cost. The net overall cost is therefore £3.4 billion overall. That's over the 99 years." he was either doing a Diane Abbott with his numbers, or just lying. He's not stupid, so I think it was the latter. There's no way his advisors got the figures wrong. A schoolboy can work it out.

To get to his number you'd have to assume a 15% annual inflation rate for the next 100 years. Which is clearly ridiculous.
 
metalblue said:
The pension one is likely to be the one that is politically the most palatable due to the tax breaks received.

I’d say that’ll bring a much needed boost to growth and help the government of the day with investment.
Click to expand...
Would it? So the pension funds have to buy more shares in British companies. That pushes their share prices up, but doesn't do anything for their growth or profits.

OK, so the companies with higher valuations can perhaps borrow money more easily and maybe do a takeover or something, but the higher share price does nothing directly for their performance or growth.

And on the contrary, if the pension funds are currently invested in e.g. the US and getting a return fo X, and then are forced to invest in the UK and get a lower return (which clearly they would, or else they'd be invested here in the first place!) then actually all it does is depresses pension pots, lowers pension income and associated tax revenues.

In short, I'd need to be convinced that was a good idea!
 
meltonblue said:
We would have been obligated in the near future, even the conservatives realised that, and it would likely have cost a shedload more had we gone down that route.
Click to expand...
I just think it was terrible negotiation on our part, whoever was responsible.

Had we started off with a flat refusal to hand the islands back, then softened it to say OK you can have them back if you give the airbase access AND give us £100m a year, that would have been a decent starting point for negotiation. We could have compromised and reached a deal where we waive the £100m but give the islands back and get airbase access for free.

Of course we will never know. But what I will say having dealt with government negotiators in the past, they are usually utterly shit at it, and it would not suprise me at all if this is another balls up.

When was the last time anything the government ever negotiated a contract for, actually cost what they said it would. They are rubbish at negotiations.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Yes I have

This report was accepted by the Labour Party in June 2025 ... not by the Tories (my point)

Good to see that Burnham (Labour Mayor for Manchester) seems to be the only one acting on point 11 re out of town Taxis
Click to expand...
My point being, I don't know how ANYONE could read it and still say we don't need a public enquiry.

And yet you said "do I agree with him that a further enquiry is needed ? Not really but I accept that he was in a no win situation so accept his decision".

I find that absolutely shocking if I am honest. That anyone could read that and still say we don't need a public inquiry, is just MIND BLOWING.

BTW, of course the Tories accepted the report! What a strange thing to say. They couldn't act upon it, not being in power, but they accepted it.
 
Chippy_boy said:
My point being, I don't know how ANYONE could read it and still say we don't need a public enquiry.

And yet you said "do I agree with him that a further enquiry is needed ? Not really but I accept that he was in a no win situation so accept his decision".

I find that absolutely shocking if I am honest. That anyone could read that and still say we don't need a public inquiry, is just MIND BLOWING.

BTW, of course the Tories accepted the report! What a strange thing to say. They couldn't act upon it, not being in power, but they accepted it.
Click to expand...

There was an inquiry into the child abuse and grooming issue three years ago, so it is hardly ‘mind blowing’ to question why we needed another inquiry, hence an audit to establish whether one was needed or not.

Casey’s issue with the previous inquiry was that its recommendations where largely ignored, hence the need revisit the issue via a second inquiry.

Link to the executive summary of the previous inquiry.

Executive Summary

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), led by Prof. Alexis Jay, is investigating the extent to which institutions in England and Wales failed to protect children from sexual abuse.
www.iicsa.org.uk www.iicsa.org.uk
 
metalblue said:
A wealth tax is a bad idea and being championed by someone twice rejected by the electorate.

However public finances are in a complete mess and getting worse under Labour so something needs to be done.

If I was Reeves I’d give it a proper roll of the dice. Pension funds in this country benefit from tax breaks and then off your fund managers trot and invest in non UK companies - I would bring forth a policy that mandated a certain amount of UK pension funds must be invested in UK companies/ government projects. The government projects pay back model could be along similar lines of PFI funding but with far less punitive terms but other models are available.

They could slsp mandate the wealthy invest a certain amount of their wealth in similar schemes rather than tax them, they don’t get less wealthy but do make their wealth available for use.

The pension one is likely to be the one that is politically the most palatable due to the tax breaks received.

I’d say that’ll bring a much needed boost to growth and help the government of the day with investment.
Click to expand...
Certainly makes sense to give tax breaks to investments in companies that have significant operations in the UK whether domiciled here or not. Would cost me personally because some of my biggest tax free investments via my ISA operate predominantly outside the UK.
 
Chippy_boy said:
When was the last time anything the government ever negotiated a contract for, actually cost what they said it would. They are rubbish at negotiations.
Click to expand...
They certainly were rubbish when Frosty sold the country down the river with the appalling Brexit deal. I’d like to think they can only improve from that.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Fair enough, I thank you for your non-emotive answer.

I'll be equally non-emotive in return. The figures payable are not in dispute. It's clearly laid out; £150m for the first 3 years, £120m for the next 10, and then £120 plus an annual indexation due to inflation every year following up to 99 years. We also have to give them £45m per year for the first 25 years to some development fund. And another 1-off payment of £45m in year 1. All of this is in black and white in the agreement.

Based upon this, the real cost to the government fully accounting for inflation over the 99 years is around £10bn, depending on what RPI you use. This is not speculation on my part. It's just basic accounting. I will provide the figures should you wish.

i.e. when Starmer said, "£101 million a year is the average cost. The net overall cost is therefore £3.4 billion overall. That's over the 99 years." he was either doing a Diane Abbott with his numbers, or just lying. He's not stupid, so I think it was the latter. There's no way his advisors got the figures wrong. A schoolboy can work it out.

To get to his number you'd have to assume a 15% annual inflation rate for the next 100 years. Which is clearly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The total expected cost has been calculated by discounting the sums due to be paid to Mauritius over the duration of the treaty, using the standard Social Time Preference Rate (STPR) as set-out in the Treasury’s Green Book. This public sector discount rate adjusts for social time preference, defined as the value society attaches to present as opposed to future consumption, and has been used in the UK since 2003. Due to the long-term nature of the treaty, the discount rate has a significant impact on the expected cost. We have applied the declining long-term real STPR as follows: 3.5% (0-30 years); 3% (31-75 years) and 2.5% (76+ years).

The average annual cost has been calculated by applying the Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecast GDP Deflator to the future payments described above.

Now it's not what I call "just basic accounting" and I can't be bothered getting my head round STPR, but it looks like Starmer's advisors knew what they were doing and he wasn't lying. Plus the deal was done largely by the Tories, and Labour inherited a "close to final treaty".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top