UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
Mate, firstly.
Calm down.
Secondly, you're wrong, it is GDP not GDP per capita and it is at least 200bn.
These are facts, accept the facts.
LOL
Fuck off and learn something before you give it large pal.
Productivity, as in GDP per capita. Not GDP.
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions
No it's GDP, you are simply wrong, confidently wrong I will grant you, but wrong.
Tell me genius, what's the measure for long term productivity growth the OBR uses here?
https://obr.uk/box/productivity-growth-long-term/
Oh right, look at that, it's GDP.
I mean, are you saying Bloomberg is also wrong?
Again, resorting to insults just shows up your immaturity and the fact that you've lost this debate.
Fucking hell,
GDP is one thing
GDP per capita is a measure of productivity and living standards
Once you've worked that out, tell me what the loss of productivity that the OBR is forecasting is down to.
Hint, it's comparative advantage. When you've learned what that is, let me know.
Yeah I know what the difference is, I've just shown you that the OBR is referring to GDP when they walk about 'long term productivity growth' and nothing you have posted there contradicts that.
Seems to be a pattern here, you say something incorrect, I point it out, and you throw insults.
Lol, no they're not. Productivity is not GDP...
And the 4% is over 15 years and is a result of loss of comparative advantage.
If you have to compound an effect over 15 years to get 4%, the effect is fuck all.
So why do Bloomberg put it at 100bn based on that 4% figure?
Yeah, sounds unlikely doesn't it?
Let me ask you, what do you think it's cost the UK per year in billion pounds?
But that's what the forecast says. 4% of productivity lost over the long term of 15 years due to loss of comparative advantage
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis
But the forecast is for the cost, no benefit is included.
The loss of comparative advantage is replaced, I'd argue, with competitive advantage which has a much stronger effect. The UK is no longer bound by the anti science regulations on genetic engineering and the new overly restrictive proposed regulations on AI
GDP per capita is a ratio of GDP / population, so if you do more with fewer people, by using automation, robots and AI, your GDP per capita will grow...
The 4% figure over 15 years is a difference of 0.29% to 0.27% productivity growth. Government policy has at least that 0.02% effect
I predict a Starmer govt will be able to introduce policy that will offset the productivity loss just by investing in renewable energy, let alone any research universities' innovations.
long-run productivity is GDP mate. Unless you have something which actually says otherwise? Even assuming it is GDP per capita, so what?
Yes it is included, there isn't any.
Uh-hu.. back to maybe and could then...
Mate, I work in IT, have done for 25 years. There is no EU regulation preventing productivity increasing thanks to automation, what a load of nonsense.
Also, we don't have fewer people do we, we have more people.
Show me a source from somebody credible that says that exactly.
I have a credible source says it's costing 100bn a year.
Here’s another one
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-damage-uk-economy-covid-b2308178.html
Britain’s gross domestic product (GDP) will be 4 per cent smaller than if the country had stayed in the EU, the head of the government’s fiscal watchdog confirmed on Sunday.
Pretty clear that if you ask me, from a national newspaper.
I predict it could all have been done in the EU, and research and development would have been easier and cheaper to collaborate on to boot.
Not maybes or coulds. Overly restrictive regs, because all EU law is civil law, not common as in the UK. I doubt you'll ever admit you don't know what you're talking about though
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779611/eu-ai-act-open-letter-artificial-intelligence-regulation-renault-siemens
What's the long range population forecast for the UK genius?
Yes it is maybes or could, that AI act is still not law and you have no idea what regulation the UK gov may or may not introduce. Further, I don't believe anything in that act will prevent AI development anyway, which regulation is it exactly you think is going to be 'overly restrictive', they all sound very reasonable to me and I'm a technical person who works in IT, unlike you.
So you ever going to answer my question then?
What figure do you put on the cost per year, if you disagree with the OBR's 100bn per year?
I know how UK common law is written and how civil regs are, I'm not even going to begin arguing unless you demonstrate that you know the difference
And the cost? UK govt has actually spent around £8b on brexit preparations
The investment delay will be recouped
UK was 2nd in Europe on GDP per capita in 2016 and is still 2nd in Europe in 2022 so it's negligible.
And what is your source for that 8bn?
Is that all the costs, I asked how much per year?
The measure is against where we would have been had we remained in the EU though.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/brexit-spending-government-preparations
It's impossible to prove where the UK would have been, a 100 year pandemic makes the brexit effect just noise. The synthetic counter factual models are smart but stupid.
You do realise that your 4% forecast is also a could and maybe yeah?
Here are the actual facts on GDP per capita. Maybe you understand pictures more easily than words
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=GB-XC-FR-DE-ES-IT&start=2016
So I asked you, how much is Brexit costing per year, and you've given me what was spent to prepare for Brexit. Can you see how these are not the same thing?
I am getting a little tired of your constant dishonesty, I'm trying to be charitable with you, but I don't really see how it's possible to misunderstand such a simple question if you are as smart as you claim to be.
Well of course because it's predicated on a model of where we would have been had we not left the EU. It's extrapolation in that sense, but it's more than you have isn't it?
Still not relevant to anything though, because as I said the measure is against where we would have been had we stayed in, not how well we still stack up in some rankings.
It's clearly relevant to our nearest economic peers...it's actual data, in the measure that the OBR forecast, and not educated guesses.
I'm tired of your dullness, goodbye
Well it was certainly interesting to engage, I'll know exactly what to watch out for with you on your future posts.
Have a lovely evening :)
🤦♂️
You don't understand your own link, 🤡