EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

The amount of subsidy for this is higher than you might think too. Remember, those working can still claim Housing Benefits. So pay minimum wage, get it subsided by the state so that they can pay you the rent on the tiny flat you rent them, that more than covers your mortgage...

HB is vital, and very needed, but currently hugely subsides poor levels of pay. And no, I don't know what the answer to the problem is. (I do, for this issue in isolation, higher minimum wages, but that has other knock on effects that may be unhelpful).

I think people might be in danger of projecting opinions through their own bias.

The opinions of the few hardcore Brexit Tories I've spoken to really boil down to 2 issues;

1) small government and decentralisation - there is nothing bigger, and more centralised than the EU.
2) national pride and self determination - acceding the power to make laws independent of a supranational body is weak

At their core they seem to believe in the right of the individual, and that people should take personal responsibility.

I'm my limited pool they are much more ideologically driven than taking some sort of practical view of how to make money in the short term. All have unshakeable confidence in their, and the country's ability to succeed.

I agree that many Brexit Tories aren't as motivated by financial gain as some here suspect. While I'm sure there are many and various reasons why traditional Tories want us out of the EU, it seems to me that the underlying reason for many is that the role of the Conservative Party has traditionally been to try and ensure that those people who hold the reins of power at the moment continue to hold the reins of power in the future, and that the establishment continues to be the establishment without any threat of the proles and hoi-polloi trying to get involved in running the country. The role of the Conversative Party is therefore to ensure that the current ruling class stays the ruling class, and maintains its ability to govern as it sees fit. Being part of the EU interferes with that, and means that the ruling class can't do whatever it likes in government, and doesn't really feel in control of the country, which chafes the spirits of the more traditionally-minded Conservatives.

Here's a finance-oriented view:

For some people in the City, the debate about the UK’s departure from the EU has focused too much on the negative aspects, such as how many bank employees will be forced to relocate. Too little time, in their view, is spent accentuating the positive and setting out what a strong City has to offer to the UK economy.

A conference in London on Tuesday, called Prosperity UK, was designed to redress the balance. Conceived by Sir Paul Marshall, the hedge fund manager who backed Leave, and former European Commissioner for Financial Services Lord Jonathan Hill, who backed Remain, it aimed to bring together business and academia to debate how to achieve the best outcome for the UK, regardless of how people voted.

Among the big names included was Jeff Sprecher, founder and chief executive of Intercontinental Exchange, whose $36bn market capitalisation makes it one of the world's biggest and most critical operators of financial markets. Mr Sprecher is heavily invested in London. From ICE’s inception in 2000, he has looked to the UK capital to help give his business scale. He has spent more than £4bn in its London operations, purchasing well-known assets such as the Liffe derivatives exchange and the International Petroleum Exchange, whose names have disappeared under the ICE brand. Revenues from its British operations topped $1.4bn in 2015.

Mr Sprecher views Brexit as a potential boon for the UK by allowing it to shift to a low-tax economy and escape the worst effects of European financial markets legislation, some of which he describes as “terrible”. His view is that Britain has a strong hand and should “have a bit of swagger” — although that attitude tends to come more easily to most mid-Westerners employed in the global derivatives market than to British politicians.

He pointed out at the conference that London is the location with the infrastructure, insurance, expertise and capital — and investors want access to it. “Sometimes, if you build a really good store, with really good pricing, people will actually come and all you have to do is advertise it,” he said.

Indeed one of the City’s biggest strengths is trading over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, which are used by investors to hedge their portfolios against big swings in currencies, interest rates and commodity prices. Underpinning that is the relatively esoteric world of clearing, which manages the risk to the market if a big bank defaults. ICE’s UK clearing house, opened in 2008, was the first new clearing house in the City in more than 100 years and is now its second-largest.

Nevertheless, Mr Sprecher noted the flattering treatment he has been given by other European financial hubs wanting his business — including Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris — and contrasted this with the relatively cold shoulder he has had from the UK government. Some of the continental flattery may have been hopeful — ICE already has operations in Amsterdam, which come with a US-EU equivalence ruling, so the company is already well hedged.

But his comments about the government’s attitude may rattle a few. They will also throw the spotlight on Lord William Hague, the former Conservative party leader and UK foreign secretary who has been chairman of ICE’s UK arm since 2015. Mr Sprecher has always favoured proactive employees who are “on message” and he may be hoping that Lord Hague takes the hint. Whether Mrs May and Mr Hammond will adopt Mr Sprecher’s recommended swagger is debatable but it would be no surprise to hear them utter some soothing words for the City in the near future.

It's an interesting stance.

I'm sure I read a paper a while back that concluded (perhaps unsurprisingly) conservative people supported the status quo and disliked change. Hence the importance of things like religion to Republicans, despite Jesus' teachings directly contradicting policy.

And the implications of a low tax economy for those who rely on anything funded by government (even partially) today would be what? Not something that anyone would vote for if it wasn't presented as "we have to do this due to the EU being mean to us".

Reduced tax = economic stimulus and growth = more tax revenue

Combine that with less wastage from state overspend = more money for the important things.

I agree that many Brexit Tories aren't as motivated by financial gain as some here suspect.

I suspect that's mainly because money has never been an issue for them as their money has been inherited

I'm no expert on the relationship between tax revenues and the costs of the state although I sense those numbers may not add up. Retaining the likes of Jeff Sprecher and his businesses in the UK in an otherwise more awkward trading environment (by virtue of not being in the single market) is likely to be achieved through incentives that involve paying less tax overall. Hence the discussion about Corporation Tax, and reducing it from 20% to something closer to 15%.

What about entrepreneurs? Also you'd usually need parents or grandparents to die to inherit money, with an aging population I doubt that is the primary source of conservative voters income.

Voting numbers seem to suggest that more than just the 1% vote conservative.

Totally agree. I'm not an expert in the slightest, but I think it's a bit simplistic to think that cutting tax immediately frees up capital which will automatically be re-invested and pay dividends.

But I do think reducing CT makes sense. The gradual drop has made it less economically viable for SMEs to avoid tax, because the cost of avoiding is so close to the cost of the tax. What frustrates everyone is the tiny amount of tax large companies pay, but I don't understand how you tackle that without disadvantaging the UK economy.

I'd assumed you were talking the zealot brexit tory politicians. My bad, as they say.

In which case they are severely deluded.

Every (UK) Government has centralised, even while giving limited powers to local assemblies,
and,
each privatised sector of the economy now has the 'dead hand' of a regulator to oversee it.

Did these acquaintances of yours ever vote for the WTO, or the UN or NATO come to that, let alone a myriad of other useful international bodies like the Universal Postal Union?

http://www.upu.int/en/the-upu/the-upu.html

Reposting this for a new page. I agree that this is the most likely way there'll be a "hard brexit"; due to lack of agreement amongst 27 nations, rather than Tory party ideology.

There will be a catastrophic Tory brexit,
because the EU-27 see the Four Freedoms as an undividable package,
not the de Pfeffel cake buffet promised by the liars of the Leave campaign.

There will be a catastrophic Tory brexit,
because the EU-27 see the Four Freedoms as an undividable package,
not the de Pfeffel cake buffet promised by the liars of the Leave campaign.

This suggests it's worthwhile at least starting negotiations regarding one of the "Four Freedoms"- http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-trade-britain-idUKKBN17T1HN

Reduced tax = economic stimulus and growth = more tax revenue

This has never, as far as I am aware, been proven to add up.

The current Trump tax plan is based on this sort of Laffer curve analysis - but a more conservative analysis shows a 7 trillion dollar loss over the next few years, rather than breaking even with growth plugging the hole left by the tax cuts.

Trickle down economics. Pretty comprehensively proven not to work.

I knew this discussion reminded me of something: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

TL;DR? Essentially Labour borrow less, repay more of the national debt than the Tories, which goes some way to disproving the oft-repeated myth that the Conservatives are the party of financial stability.

but @dammit has sold a couple of bikes on to people on lfgss

Has compulsory voting been considered ? And why not ?

Who would object and why ?

I doubt compulsory voting by itself increases faith in UK politics.

Introduction single transferrable vote, and mechanism to fight corruption (see shit here is instant general election in France and prison for corruption) may perhaps be better.

Two party systems like USA / UK setup seem to create a toxic climate.

I'm perhaps biased cos I'm Dutch coalition government, STV and an elected senate...and 60-80% turnouts.

I doubt compulsory voting by itself increases faith in UK politics.

No but it may get some of those apathetic lazy excusers to think about politics.

Well can you lead a horse to the internet to do research... But you definitely can't make it think before it votes... ;)

...wait... :)

Who would object and why ?

Because we haven't yet become that sort of retrograde authoritarian state.

Why should someone else dictate an individuals movements and impinge on their right to, or not to, vote?

If you want to start forcing citizens to go somewhere and do something why not compulsory litter picking?