Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[SpurMeUp]

I'll assume you've understood the gravity model and are just playing dumb for effect. Distance is one factor in the equation (far from the only one) in a model that has diminishing value as worldwide trade increases in the modern world.

I've been through a few laws I'd revoke. As always in this discussion, you simply ignore all previous discussion and repeat the same points again and again.

So I'll ask one more time, how confident are you in your statement that "All nations trade most with neighbours"? After all, if the gravity method works the way you are insinuating it does, you should be able to show that no major country has large trading partners that are not local.

You can't re-write logic to fit your argument preference! Just like you do most of your shopping locally, so do nations when you average out all their transactions. It is simple logic backed up by data. It is why free unencumbered trade with the EU nations is fantastic, why would anyone wish to stop that?

As for outlining how England (may not have Scotland or Ireland) would benifit from making its own laws to increase exports, you can neither name an export - product or service - or a law that would facilitate increased exports? Really Sums up the fantasy of brexit.

 

[P.D.]

So the latest talk is that lots of MPs now feel the best way to avoid no deal is to vote for the current deal (or a slightly altered version of it) - I wonder why it's taken them so long to realise that.

 

[SpurMeUp]

So the latest talk is that lots of MPs now feel the best way to avoid no deal is to vote for the current deal (or a slightly altered version of it) - I wonder why it's taken them so long to realise that.

A deal which is roundly viewed as being rubish for the UK? That both Leavers and Remainers do not like? Result! ...for who exactly?

 

[Rorschach]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1161730273899364353

 

[monkeybarry]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1161730273899364353

You'd think he'd see it coming

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'll assume you've understood the gravity model and are just playing dumb for effect. Distance is one factor in the equation (far from the only one) in a model that has diminishing value as worldwide trade increases in the modern world.

If you look at trade data, distance is no less relavent today, in fact it might be slightly more important with things like just in time production. Don't believe me, here's the cousin of our former manager talking about the Gravity model of trade:

Tony Venables: ‘It is not a theory or model or law, but a fact.’ The negative effect of distance on trade is enormous. For example, the UK trades about 8 times more with France and Germany than with Japan which has a similar sized economy but is 8 times farther away. Over the years, globalisation has led to more trade but distance has also become more important for trade. Distance manifests itself in underlying frictions such as time difference or transport costs, and impacts all economic activities, with trade being one of them. Some frictions to trade can be variable, such as tariffs and trade policy, but distance remains fixed.

 

[Gutter Boy]

This seems a good plan

https://twitter.com/x/status/1161667791218446337

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

You can't re-write logic to fit your argument preference! Just like you do most of your shopping locally, so do nations when you average out all their transactions. It is simple logic backed up by data. It is why free unencumbered trade with the EU nations is fantastic, why would anyone wish to stop that?

As for outlining how England (may not have Scotland or Ireland) would benifit from making its own laws to increase exports, you can neither name an export - product or service - or a law that would facilitate increased exports? Really Sums up the fantasy of brexit.

Yeah, like Scara makes a regular run out to Sainsburys in Leeds for his weekly shop.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Jeremy Corbyn has urged the leaders of the other opposition parties and Tory rebels to install him as caretaker PM in order to stop a no-deal Brexit.

If he wins a no-confidence vote in the government, the Labour leader plans to delay Brexit, call a snap election and campaign for another referendum.

Mr Corbyn outlined his plan in a letter, saying the caretaker government would be "strictly time-limited".

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson dismissed the plans as "nonsense".

Downing Street said Mr Corbyn would "overrule the referendum and wreck the economy" if he became prime minister.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he wants a deal with the European Union, but insists the UK must leave the bloc by 31 October "do or die".

Mr Corbyn said he would seek to call a no-confidence vote at the "earliest opportunity when we can be confident of success".

To defeat the government he would have to secure the backing of a majority of MPs.

In his letter, Mr Corbyn wrote: "This government has no mandate for no-deal, and the 2016 EU referendum provided no mandate for no-deal.

"Following a successful vote of no confidence in the government, I would then, as Leader of the Opposition, seek the confidence of the House for a strictly time-limited temporary government with the aim of calling a general election, and securing the necessary extension of Article 50 to do so."

If he were to succeed in calling a general election - which would require the support of two-thirds of MPs - Labour would campaign for a second referendum with the option to remain in the EU, he said.

How have the parties responded?

• Ms Swinson rejected his proposals outright, saying: "Jeremy Corbyn is not the person who is going to be able to build an even temporary majority in the House of Commons for this task"
• Green MP Caroline Lucas welcomed Mr Corbyn's call for a vote of no confidence but insisted a referendum must be held before any general election
• Plaid Cymru's Westminster Leader, Liz Saville Roberts MP said she welcomed any attempt to stop no-deal but said it was "disappointing" that he would not commit to calling a referendum before an election
• The SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford said his party would support the principle of a no-confidence vote, but "there is no mechanism for a caretaker government at the moment"

Also receiving the letter were Tory MPs Dominic Grieve, Sir Oliver Letwin and Dame Caroline Spelman, and Nick Boles, the independent MP who quit the Tory Party over Brexit.

Change UK leader Anna Soubry, who was not sent the letter, said Mr Corbyn "doesn't even command respect and support from his own party never mind across the political divide".

BBC political correspondent Tom Barton said the initial response from the other parties suggests Mr Corbyn probably doesn't have the numbers to get his plan through.

"There are plenty of MPs who say they want to stop a no-deal Brexit but getting them to agree on how to do it - that's a different matter altogether," he says.

In response to the letter, a No 10 spokesman said: "There is a clear choice: Either Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister who will overrule the referendum and wreck the economy, or Boris Johnson as prime minister who will respect the referendum and deliver more money for the NHS and more police on our streets.

"This government believes the people are the masters and votes should be respected. Jeremy Corbyn believes that the people are the servants and politicians can cancel public votes they don't like."

Shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey said it was "right" for Mr Corbyn, as the leader of the biggest opposition party, to lead any caretaker government.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a Corbyn-led government would only be "as short as possible", and would not try to implement Labour policies.

"We think it's the simplest and most democratic way of avoiding a no-deal situation," she added.

It comes after the prime minister accused MPs "who think they can block Brexit" of a "terrible collaboration" with the EU.

Mr Johnson said the EU had become less willing to compromise on a new deal with the UK because of the opposition to leaving in Parliament.

He said this increased the likelihood of the UK being "forced to leave with a no-deal" in October.

Mr Johnson wants the EU to ditch the Irish border backstop plan from his predecessor Theresa May's deal, which was rejected three times by Parliament.

But the EU has continued to insist the policy - intended to guarantee there will not be a hard border on the island of Ireland - must remain and cannot be changed.


He'll try anything to get the job wont he? Literally no difference to Boris on that front.

 

[Baleforce]

this can't work without Corbyn, it also can't work with Corbyn

 

[scaramanga]

If you look at trade data, distance is no less relavent today, in fact it might be slightly more important with things like just in time production. Don't believe me, here's the cousin of our former manager talking about the Gravity model of trade:

Tony Venables: ‘It is not a theory or model or law, but a fact.’ The negative effect of distance on trade is enormous. For example, the UK trades about 8 times more with France and Germany than with Japan which has a similar sized economy but is 8 times farther away. Over the years, globalisation has led to more trade but distance has also become more important for trade. Distance manifests itself in underlying frictions such as time difference or transport costs, and impacts all economic activities, with trade being one of them. Some frictions to trade can be variable, such as tariffs and trade policy, but distance remains fixed.

So, let me get this very clear, what you're saying is "All nations trade most with neighbours" - are you or are you not confirming that to be your position?

 

[scaramanga]

Yeah, like Scara makes a regular run out to Sainsburys in Leeds for his weekly shop.

I actually pulled a few items out of my fridge and posted their origins somewhere way back in this thread. They were from all over the world.

And no, of course I don't do any shopping. My wife gets Ocado to deliver it and I couldn't give fewer fudges as to where that all comes from.

 

[scaramanga]

Jeremy Corbyn has urged the leaders of the other opposition parties and Tory rebels to install him as caretaker PM in order to stop a no-deal Brexit.

If he wins a no-confidence vote in the government, the Labour leader plans to delay Brexit, call a snap election and campaign for another referendum.

Mr Corbyn outlined his plan in a letter, saying the caretaker government would be "strictly time-limited".

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson dismissed the plans as "nonsense".

Downing Street said Mr Corbyn would "overrule the referendum and wreck the economy" if he became prime minister.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he wants a deal with the European Union, but insists the UK must leave the bloc by 31 October "do or die".

Mr Corbyn said he would seek to call a no-confidence vote at the "earliest opportunity when we can be confident of success".

To defeat the government he would have to secure the backing of a majority of MPs.

In his letter, Mr Corbyn wrote: "This government has no mandate for no-deal, and the 2016 EU referendum provided no mandate for no-deal.

"Following a successful vote of no confidence in the government, I would then, as Leader of the Opposition, seek the confidence of the House for a strictly time-limited temporary government with the aim of calling a general election, and securing the necessary extension of Article 50 to do so."

If he were to succeed in calling a general election - which would require the support of two-thirds of MPs - Labour would campaign for a second referendum with the option to remain in the EU, he said.

How have the parties responded?

• Ms Swinson rejected his proposals outright, saying: "Jeremy Corbyn is not the person who is going to be able to build an even temporary majority in the House of Commons for this task"
• Green MP Caroline Lucas welcomed Mr Corbyn's call for a vote of no confidence but insisted a referendum must be held before any general election
• Plaid Cymru's Westminster Leader, Liz Saville Roberts MP said she welcomed any attempt to stop no-deal but said it was "disappointing" that he would not commit to calling a referendum before an election
• The SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford said his party would support the principle of a no-confidence vote, but "there is no mechanism for a caretaker government at the moment"

Also receiving the letter were Tory MPs Dominic Grieve, Sir Oliver Letwin and Dame Caroline Spelman, and Nick Boles, the independent MP who quit the Tory Party over Brexit.

Change UK leader Anna Soubry, who was not sent the letter, said Mr Corbyn "doesn't even command respect and support from his own party never mind across the political divide".

BBC political correspondent Tom Barton said the initial response from the other parties suggests Mr Corbyn probably doesn't have the numbers to get his plan through.

"There are plenty of MPs who say they want to stop a no-deal Brexit but getting them to agree on how to do it - that's a different matter altogether," he says.

In response to the letter, a No 10 spokesman said: "There is a clear choice: Either Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister who will overrule the referendum and wreck the economy, or Boris Johnson as prime minister who will respect the referendum and deliver more money for the NHS and more police on our streets.

"This government believes the people are the masters and votes should be respected. Jeremy Corbyn believes that the people are the servants and politicians can cancel public votes they don't like."

Shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey said it was "right" for Mr Corbyn, as the leader of the biggest opposition party, to lead any caretaker government.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a Corbyn-led government would only be "as short as possible", and would not try to implement Labour policies.

"We think it's the simplest and most democratic way of avoiding a no-deal situation," she added.

It comes after the prime minister accused MPs "who think they can block Brexit" of a "terrible collaboration" with the EU.

Mr Johnson said the EU had become less willing to compromise on a new deal with the UK because of the opposition to leaving in Parliament.

He said this increased the likelihood of the UK being "forced to leave with a no-deal" in October.

Mr Johnson wants the EU to ditch the Irish border backstop plan from his predecessor Theresa May's deal, which was rejected three times by Parliament.

But the EU has continued to insist the policy - intended to guarantee there will not be a hard border on the island of Ireland - must remain and cannot be changed.


He'll try anything to get the job wont he? Literally no difference to Boris on that front.

It's almost as if he's never seen Star Wars.

 

[SpurMeUp]

So, let me get this very clearly, what you're saying is "All nations trade most with neighbours" - are you or are you not confirming that to be your position?

You're fixated with one sentence! Trade is negatively affected by distance. But you don't seem able to accept that because it doesn't fit your brexit world view? The Gravity model of trade undermines the Telegraph narrative but is undeniable. Remember on brexit both the Telegraphy and Spectator are unballanced by their owners the Barclay borthers who will pay good money for any content that makes Brexit seem plausable.

So you are in denial that trade is affected by distance. Furthermore, you can't name a UK law that we would change to allow us to increase exports. Or give us one example of an export that would increase becuase of brexit. Not one?

 

[scaramanga]

You're fixated with one sentence! Trade is negatively affected by distance. But you don't seem able to accept that because it doesn't fit your brexit world view? The Gravity model of trade undermines the Telegraph narrative but is undeniable. Remember on brexit both the Telegraphy and Spectator are unballanced by their owners the Barclay borthers who will pay good money for any content that makes Brexit seem plausable.

So you are in denial that trade is affected by distance. Furthermore, you can't name a UK law that we would change to allow us to increase exports. Or give us one example of an export that would increase becuase of brexit. Not one?

I'm not getting into that game of repeating myself with you again. We've had this same discussion in this very thread two or three times already. I give you detail, you ignore it and then a month later you claim I've never given you details. It's all here in this thread - at least have the courtesy to look back through and find it.

I'll rephrase my question seeing as you're having so much trouble answering it that way. Who is China's largest trading partner?

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'm not getting into that game of repeating myself with you again. We've had this same discussion in this very thread two or three times already. I give you detail, you ignore it and then a month later you claim I've never given you details. It's all here in this thread - at least have the courtesy to look back through and find it.

I'll rephrase my question seeing as you're having so much trouble answering it that way. Who is China's largest trading partner?

That is a poor way to avoid a difficult question. You named EU laws you don't like previously (think you came up with the minium wage and working time directive as things you'd change). What you said a page earlier is that out of the EU our UK exports would increase. That was your claim. But you are unwilling or unable to substantiate it. If exports will increase due to being able to change EU laws - tell us what the laws are that are holding us back, and what exports you think will accelerate. Or did you just pull the claim out of thin air? A dream. A baseless promise.

If you can't outline how exports will increase because of brexit, it is not that I am ignoring you, it is becuase brexit promises do not add up. If the oppotunity is there, outline it.

Quick google search, and here is the list of China's trade:

• United States: US$479.7 billion (19.2% of total Chinese exports)
• Hong Kong: $303 billion (12.1%)
• Japan: $147.2 billion (5.9%)
• South Korea: $109 billion (4.4%)
• Vietnam: $84 billion (3.4%)
• Germany: $77.9 billion (3.1%)
• India: $76.9 billion (3.1%)
• Netherlands: $73.1 billion (2.9%)

The Gravity model holds true. The US is a massive market with many many more people than Hong Kong, yet Hong Kong is only 7% lower than the US' trade with China.

 

[scaramanga]

That is a poor way to avoid a difficult question. You named EU laws you don't like previously (think you came up with the minium wage and working time directive as things you'd change). What you said a page earlier is that out of the EU our UK exports would increase. That was your claim. But you are unwilling or unable to substantiate it. If exports will increase due to being able to change EU laws - tell us what the laws are that are holding us back, and what exports you think will accelerate. Or did you just pull the claim out of thin air? A dream. A baseless promise.

If you can't outline how exports will increase because of brexit, it is not that I am ignoring you, it is becuase brexit promises do not add up. If the oppotunity is there, outline it.

Quick google search, and here is the list of China's trade:

• United States: US$479.7 billion (19.2% of total Chinese exports)
• Hong Kong: $303 billion (12.1%)
• Japan: $147.2 billion (5.9%)
• South Korea: $109 billion (4.4%)
• Vietnam: $84 billion (3.4%)
• Germany: $77.9 billion (3.1%)
• India: $76.9 billion (3.1%)
• Netherlands: $73.1 billion (2.9%)

The Gravity model holds true. The US is a massive market with many many more people than Hong Kong, yet Hong Kong is only 7% lower than the US' trade with China.

Yet the US is still their largest trading partner. So the gravity model shows that people will trend locally but also there is clearly no reason not to trade further away.

Who does Saudi Arabia trade most with? Who are Brazil's second and third largest trading partners? Germany's third largest? Russia's largest? Who does India do most of its trade with?

The gravity model shown nothing more than a trend - one that is diminishing with time.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Yet the US is still their largest trading partner. So the gravity model shows that people will trend locally but also there is clearly no reason not to trade further away.

Who does Saudi Arabia trade most with? Who are Brazil's second and third largest trading partners? Germany's third largest? Russia's largest? Who does India do most of its trade with?

The gravity model shown nothing more than a trend - one that is diminishing with time.

You are wrong. Or Tony Venables Oxford Professor, no relation to El Tel, is? This is his text:

‘It is not a theory or model or law, but a fact.’ The negative effect of distance on trade is enormous. For example, the UK trades about 8 times more with France and Germany than with Japan which has a similar sized economy but is 8 times farther away. Over the years, globalisation has led to more trade but distance has also become more important for trade. Distance manifests itself in underlying frictions such as time difference or transport costs, and impacts all economic activities, with trade being one of them. Some frictions to trade can be variable, such as tariffs and trade policy, but distance remains fixed.


PriceWaterhouseCooper are also wrong?

Laura Gatz-Schulz: The analysis examined over 1,700 estimates from the literature on the impact of distance on trade by means of a meta-analysis, a statistical evaluation of a body of literature. The data indicates that distance is no less relevant now than it was in the past few decades, and if anything it might have become more important for trade. For example, UK trade with a country 500 miles away would have been 111% higher than with a country 1000 miles away in the 2000s, but only by 97% in 1970s. Possible reasons behind this include: • Supply chain dynamics: Trade in intermediate goods has risen rapidly. For example, Airbus manufactures its final planes in Spain but the components are sourced from all over Europe. This type of trade tends to be most effective over short distances, not only because of lower transport costs but also because of the need for ‘just in time’ delivery. • Technological changes: There is an increasing trend of ‘sending’ intellectual property across borders, instead of physical goods, i.e. setting up factories closer to local markets. This means that goods are ultimately traded over shorter distances. This trend has already been present for a long time, but new technologies such as 3D printing can make this trend even stronger.


Why should I beleive you over people who look at this stuff for a day job, when you can not give one simple example to back up your claim that UK exports will increase? That doesn't endear confidence or credibility.

For someone who doesn't like quacks and pseudoscience you appear worryingly aligned to them.

 

[scaramanga]

You are wrong. Or Tony Venable Oxford Professors, no relation to El Tel, is? This is his text:

‘It is not a theory or model or law, but a fact.’ The negative effect of distance on trade is enormous. For example, the UK trades about 8 times more with France and Germany than with Japan which has a similar sized economy but is 8 times farther away. Over the years, globalisation has led to more trade but distance has also become more important for trade. Distance manifests itself in underlying frictions such as time difference or transport costs, and impacts all economic activities, with trade being one of them. Some frictions to trade can be variable, such as tariffs and trade policy, but distance remains fixed.


PriceWaterhouseCooper are also wrong?

Laura Gatz-Schulz: The analysis examined over 1,700 estimates from the literature on the impact of distance on trade by means of a meta-analysis, a statistical evaluation of a body of literature. The data indicates that distance is no less relevant now than it was in the past few decades, and if anything it might have become more important for trade. For example, UK trade with a country 500 miles away would have been 111% higher than with a country 1000 miles away in the 2000s, but only by 97% in 1970s. Possible reasons behind this include: • Supply chain dynamics: Trade in intermediate goods has risen rapidly. For example, Airbus manufactures its final planes in Spain but the components are sourced from all over Europe. This type of trade tends to be most effective over short distances, not only because of lower transport costs but also because of the need for ‘just in time’ delivery. • Technological changes: There is an increasing trend of ‘sending’ intellectual property across borders, instead of physical goods, i.e. setting up factories closer to local markets. This means that goods are ultimately traded over shorter distances. This trend has already been present for a long time, but new technologies such as 3D printing can make this trend even stronger.


Why should I beleive you over people who look at this stuff for a day job, when you can not give one simple example to back up your claim that UK exports will increase? That doesn't endear confidence or credibility.

For someone who doesn't like quacks and pseudoscience you appear worryingly aligned to them.

You're still not getting it - please bear with me while I step you through it. I'll speed things up a little by assuming some of your answers below so please tell me if they don't represent your opinion.

Are there extra language barriers to buying from China that are not there when buying from France or Germany (however marginal)? Yes
Do deliveries from China often take longer (assuming all other things equal such as lead times)? Yes
Is there an increased risk (however marginal) of buying things from China due to the distance? Yes

So why do so many people buy so much from China?

 

[monkeybarry]

this can't work without Corbyn, it also can't work with Corbyn

I can see a vote of no confidence passing, but then vote of confidence in the new (temp) gov failing.
Which I believe automatically triggers a GE. (There might be one more stage after, can't quite remember)