• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?

There is an interesting article here about how Rachel Reeves' problems are in part due to
the central banks undertaking quantitative tightening; i.e. a reversal of quantitative easing:


There is to me a comparison with Liz Truss whose very dubious attempt to generate growth
was shot in the foot by the world's central banks deciding to raise interest rates then.
 
Jim Ratcliffe would certainly know all about shifting production and emissions elsewhere, given that he did it himself.
This, but unironically?

A businessman may be willing to accept lower profits out of patriotism or environmentalism, but - assuming what they said of the plant becoming a loss-making operation due to energy prices is true - can you blame one for closing/relocating it?

And I am saying this as someone who has all his pensions savings in green energy (thereby taking a 10% loss this last year alone).
 
ces - is true, can you blame one for closing/relocating it?

And I am saying this as someone who has all his pensions savings in green energy (thereby taking a 10% loss this last year alone).
The piece seems to be blaming green energy - do you agree? Where do you think we should place blame, assuming the best outcome is to improve the outcome for UK residents (via net zero targets)?
 
It seems that Starmer is dropping the Chagos deal. Mauritius has apparently been demanding billions up front so that might be the reason.

Or it could be Mr Trump’s team have had a quiet word – “You really don’t want to be labelled a ‘surrender monkey country’ surely… and miss out on a trade deal with us.

It would be a politically stupid thing to sign it a few days before 20th anyway.

Finally some common sense in our government?



Sir Keir Starmer has ditched attempts to get his Chagos Islands deal signed before Donald Trump takes office next week.

Downing Street has confirmed that the Prime Minister will not sign off on an agreement until the president-elect has looked it over. The announcement means the pact could collapse altogether if the Trump administration decides to formally oppose it.

Sir Keir’s spokesman said on Wednesday: “We will only agree to a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security. It is obviously now right that the new US administration has the chance to consider this and discuss this once they are in office.”

Asked whether this meant the UK would not sign a deal before Mr Trump’s inauguration on Monday, he replied: “You can take from what I have just said.”

Downing Street suggested that while Mr Trump would be able to oppose the deal, he would not be granted a “veto” over whether it is signed.
 
I very much doubt that "Trump's team" could have a quiet word about anything. Trump's whole deal as a politician has been trial by social media (except where it relates to him, of course).
 
Screenshot_20250115_014026_Chrome.jpg
 
I'm guessing that Labour is doing this because Trump would likely threaten to invade Malaysia in response, and sensible politics would mean not inflaming your racist granddad at the Thanksgiving table.
 
I suspect that Rachel Reeves hasn't budgeted to pay much of that £9 billion up front.

And relying on the Crown prerogative to sign a treaty without Parliamentary debate is constitutionally rather tricky.

Nevertheless I fear that Sir Keir Starmer will press ahead and whip his MPs into acquiescence.
 
There is to me a comparison with Liz Truss whose very dubious attempt to generate growth
was shot in the foot by the world's central banks deciding to raise interest rates then.
Having been in government for years on end before that, how could she possibly not have known that was coming?
 
Her hair colour had nothing to do with it. It was arrogance, most likely. Hell, we even heard that the Queen no less told her to tread lightly during their only meeting and Truss' inattention is now the stuff of economic nightmares.
 
Some good news, for a change:

Brexit ‘a thing of the past’ as UK becomes major EU hub’s top trading partner
Jump in trade with North Sea Port hailed as sign of fading impact of post-Brexit regulation




Britain has become the top trading partner for a major European gateway port in a “remarkable” post-Brexit turnaround.

Trade with Europe’s North Sea Port surged by 26pc last year, new figures show, allowing the UK to overtake the US as the port’s biggest trading partner.

By contrast, overall maritime cargo traffic at the port rose by 0.7pc year-on-year, while inland waterway trade climbed by 4.4pc.

Trade between the US and the North Sea Port slumped for the second year in a row, falling by 6pc to 5.1m tonnes.

The North Sea Port companies said in a press release that the numbers showed that “the impact of Brexit seems to be a thing of the past”.

The 60km-wide trading hub encompasses the Belgian inland port of Ghent as well as the Dutch ports of Terneuzen and Flushing, with around 550 companies operating in the area.

The jump in UK trade with the port has been hailed by the press in Europe as a sign that the toll of post-Brexit regulation has been forgotten.

The UK traded 6m tons of goods with the port last year, up by 1.2m since 2023 and reversing the decline seen in the years immediately after Britain left the European Union.

Flemish news site VRT described the resurgence as “remarkable” while the Brussels Times said “the effects of Brexit on the port’s activity appear to be fading”.

Maarten Den Dekker, of the North Sea Port, told VRT: “That trade is now recovering gives us hope for the future.”

In total, 66.3m tons of seaborne cargo was traded via the North Sea Port last year. After the US, the port’s third and fourth-largest trading partners were Sweden and Canada.

UK goods exports to the EU plunged sharply in January 2021 following the end of the Brexit transition period.

Although trade has recovered since then, the volume of goods exported to the EU in 2023 was still down by 11pc compared to 2019 levels.

Data suggests that this decline was not necessarily only a result of Brexit, with UK exports to non-EU countries also down by 11pc since 2019 in the wake of the pandemic.

The EU was the destination for 42pc of UK exports in 2023, encompassing 49pc of goods and 36pc of services exports.


 
The way I see it Liz Truss got to where she got primarily by being an attractive blonde and determinedly cultivating those in power.

Remember Boris likes blondes.

I never regarded her as ministerial, let alone prime ministerial quality.
 
Fair enough. That might well be true.
 
There is an interesting article here about how Rachel Reeves' problems are in part due to
the central banks undertaking quantitative tightening; i.e. a reversal of quantitative easing:


There is to me a comparison with Liz Truss whose very dubious attempt to generate growth
was shot in the foot by the world's central banks deciding to raise interest rates then.
It was disturbing how Truss' scheme was denied by something outside the elected government. It's more disturbing how that seems to be happening to Reeves' budget, in spite this government at least affecting a moderate economic agenda. According to that writer, Reeves could over rule the Bank of England, but doesn't. What are we permitted to do with our economy?

I suppose that could be asked of all sorts of ostensibly technocratic authorities, some of which I'd rather leave alone anyway.
 
Truss's budget was denied by contact with reality.

Most recent UK trade statistics for reference:

2.3 UK trade with EU and non-EU countries in the 4 quarters to the end of June 2024
Trade direction Value £ billion % change since previous 4 quarters
UK exports to the EU 352.3 -3.4%
UK imports from the EU 452.7 2.1%
UK exports to the non-EU 500.9 -6.2%
UK imports from the non-EU 425.0 -7.3

Anecdotes from one port are just that, anecdotes.
The port of Holyhead would be reporting a terrible end of the year - it was closed due to storm damage.
 
It seems the Labour government here has just rolled over, and is now submitting to take orders from Elon Musk.


Whatever the merits of a national review of grooming gangs (and that is a topic for debate all in itself),
it is for me quite telling that it is only when Elon Musk kicks up a fuss that the government starts to do one.
 
Governments reacting to media pressure is nothing new. The problem is that the two biggest mass communication systems are owned by two specific named individuals (Musk and Zuckerberg) who are basically uncheckable in their power. The Fakebook and Twitter conglomerates are just too big.
 
The problem for Truss was the same as for Reeves. The UK is very frail internationally. It has to keep attracting capital to cover the trade deficit. The trade deficit in goos, in particualr, is huge. Services surprlus covers most of it but services are fickle. More sensitive to recessions.
Internal devaluation easily loses the UK the personell who does those services. They emigrate. That rules out allowing the pound to weaken unless the government is prepared to deal with a bigger problem, and bigger changes. It isn't.
 
Top Bottom