General British politics discussion thread

Here you go:

With plenty pay of links to UK studies therein. And, accessorily, old as the hills by now (well, in the specific context of Brexit discussions and sub-debates, whether in this thread or the other).

Given how the UK has swapped EU economic migration for much more non-EU economic migration since 2016, feel to extrapolate from the link’s conclusions, taking care to note the distinction between both already made therein.

A 2% fall in wages, happening over say 10 years (figure chosen based on the link by the other poster, which gives 5-10 years as a theoretical period for a decline in wages) is extremely significant given that wages could normally be expected to *rise* during that period.

Wages are being held down and this is a significant factor in that. Remember this is all happening in an economy based on constant growth on steroids, yet wages in this part of the economy are not merely stagnant but declining.

Even 0% wage growth is quite bad, in normal times (i.e. outside of an inflationary crisis like the one we're in now) but -2% wage growth is what we're looking at.

I do think it helps explain the unpopularity of Labour who are now totally dependent on Tory-fatigue to get them over the finishing line.

@anca

So you haven't read the study? And don't intend to?

The context and parameters are set out clearly.

Not everyone is starting at rock bottom so minimum wages increases don't solve the problem.

Why mention an outlier like a Central Bank CEO? The average worker is not a CEO obviously.

'Precisely'

Did you even read the study?

Wow.

You have no clue what the data points are and how they are isolated within the study. You have not even glanced at the methodology.

If you're dismissing things you haven't read there is no discussion so that's that.

Austerity is not about government borrowing, and still less about government borrowing costs, which are a function of interest rates. Austerity is about expenditure. Rising borrowing costs are certainly not "the opposite of austerity". It's gaslighting of the silliest kind to pretend that the UK did not pursue austerity policies; the government at the time was quite open about this and the very term "austerity" was adopted and popularised by them to describe their policies.

The policy of austerity was one of significant (and permanent reductions) in public expenditure. The stated objects of the policy were (a) to eliminate the budget deficit; (b) to lead to a fall in debt as a percentage of GDP and (c) to bring about a permanent reduction in the role of the state, with the gap in services being filled by grass-roots organisations, charities and private companies.

In the event, of course, the policy was only partly successful. The budget deficit was reduced (from 7.2% of GDP in 2010, when the policy was adopted, to 2.7% of GDP in 2016) but not eliminated. The target of eliminating the budget deficit was abandoned in 2016 in response to the (self-inflicted) economic shock of Brexit, and thereafter the deficit remained in the 2/3% range each year until 2020, when it shot up to 15% in the conditions of the pandemic. While there was more public expenditure in the pandemic, that only partly accounts for the very high budget deficit; there was also a fall in tax revenue in 2020. The deficit was brought back down to 5.7% in 2021 and is projected to decline further.

UK public debt has not been reduced as a percentage of GDP, but the policy did succeed after a number of years in stabilising it, until (again) the pandemic led to a large rise.

The cost of servicing the debt has risen hugely, but this is not mainly because of the rise in the debt itself, but because of the rise in interest rates.

The fact that the policy was not wholly successful does not mean, of course, that it was not pursued, and in particular that the programme of spending cuts was not implemented; it was. The reduction in the budget deficit from 2010 to 2019 as a percentage of GDP was driven entirely by a reduction in government spending; there was no rise in revenue. The spending cuts affected social security, social services, education, local government services, police, courts, prisons, public sector pay and housing, with measurable effects on real wages, household income, child poverty, mental health and mortality. It's absurd to pretend that this never happened simply because it failed to achieve the targeted outcomes.

Those days with rail, bus, highway workers and baggage handlers all striking the weekend before Christmas should be, interesting...

'The elves enjoy working conditions that are poles apart from the workers in the UK.'

That's because of the North Pole government's strong emphasis on elfin safety.

It doesn't surprise me for a moment though. The whole Brexit / right wing populist nexus by the Tories and their many press pals seems aimed at elderly English xenophobes and conservatives. I can see very little that would appeal to the under 40s or even under 50s.

The fact too that Brexit is a quite clear catastrophic failure and is 100% a Tory Party venture must surely be playing into this too.