[David9694]

No more lollipop ladies, close paddling pools and turning off streetlights: How budget cutting BCP Council proposes to save millions

This will be coming to your area in one shape or another.  A few items below, with more in the pipeline as they still have a £12m gap. 

No America trade deal. Still, I was reading, a possibility of an India deal next year, which will fix everything. 

Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (Save £270,000) – They aim to remove community safety officers from Poole Town Centre, Christchurch Town Centre and Boscombe.

Monitoring CCTV (Save £49,000) – Reduce live monitoring of the cameras by 15-30 per cent and to seek support from partner agencies to fund the service. This could mean cameras will no longer be watched by staff at off-peak times.
.
Switching off street lighting (Save £68,000) – Turn off streetlights after midnight to 6am on quieter residential roads within the Poole area.

School Crossing Patrol (Save £12,000) – Remove school crossing patrols from locations that have existing crossing facilities and remove school crossing patrols from locations that, following a survey, do not meet the threshold for a patrol.

https://www.dorset.live/news/dorset-news/bcp-council-savings-budget-cuts-8924988

Topic

[RDaneel]

No removing tariffs is really

No removing tariffs is really easy, you ignore the vested interest and just do it. It will make people enormously better off so would be an easy sell no? 
Truly free trade? You need to define that as I suspect it wouldn’t be as free as you like to make out. Free movement of people from across the globe into the U.K.? Zero regulations as that is a restriction on trade? No enforcement of patents and copyrights/trademarks as that’s a restriction on free trade? No to REACH style regulations etc etc. 

[Rendel Harris]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

I believe £20bn a year gross liability meets the ‘tens of’ criterion. A mere £11bn net you say, what an absolute bargain. Shame we have to spend that on the NHS now.

You seem to have missed the word “theoretical” – those monies were never paid. So yes, we have the £11bn back, huzzah, and in return all we have to do is accept an estimated 4% drop (Office for Budget Responsibility) in GDP, or roughly £120bn. Get back £11BN and in return throw away around £50BN (UKGOV tax receipts equal 40% GDP), absolute bargain indeed.

[Rich_cb]

It’s not an easy thing to do.
It’s not an easy thing to do. That’s why it hasn’t been done.

Vested interests spend a lot of time lobbying to ensure tariffs remain in place.

Truly free trade would make the UK considerably richer. The quasi free trade the EU offers won’t make anywhere near as much difference relative to the status quo.

[Rich_cb]

I believe £20bn a year gross
I believe £20bn a year gross liability meets the ‘tens of’ criterion.

A mere £11bn net you say, what an absolute bargain.

Shame we have to spend that on the NHS now.

[chrisonabike]

It’s all playing with
It’s all playing with definitions and what is a degree or a completely different thing (which we’ve seen illustrated on this thread!) but isn’t it the case that nothing approaching ideal “free trade” exists anywhere? For the good reason that no state is willing to permit unrestrained movement of everything (eg. you can’t import people freely if you need workers, no one seems to be happy “letting the market manage” recreational drugs etc.)?

After that it’s just a quibble about how exactly we balance our requirements. And of course political considerations enter here. Indeed it seems there is considerable overlap between those who felt the EU was cramping our style and those who want far more restrictions on movement of people. Even though migration generally brings economic benefit to the destination county!

[Rendel Harris]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Paying 10s of billions per year to a political organisation in order to secure marginally better trade terms doesn’t seem like a great deal to me.

“10s” Office for National Statistics, 2018:

[Rich_cb]

The point is that no tariffs
The point is that no tariffs has helped make them incredibly wealthy. Free trade tends to do that.

If the EU were just a trade bloc I’d be in favour of membership but it is both a trade bloc and a political organisation.

Paying 10s of billions per year to a political organisation in order to secure marginally better trade terms doesn’t seem like a great deal to me.

[RDaneel]

jaymack wrote:

jaymack wrote:

Completely unrelated to anything in this thread but I’ve been meaning to say for ages how delighted I am by your Asimov reference. Gotta love a bit of Isaac

I knew you were going to say that 😉 

[jaymack]

Completely unrelated to
Completely unrelated to anything in this thread but I’ve been meaning to say for ages how delighted I am by your Asimov reference. Gotta love a bit of Isaac

[RDaneel]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Some countries do go down the tariff free route. Singapore has gone the furthest and happens to be one of the richest countries in the world per capita. Protectionism holds back trade. Trade makes a country wealthy.

From reading some reports Singapore is heavily reliant on imports and re-exports so it may not be a suprise they went down the route of no tariffs. We are not Geographically or economically like Singapore.
What you’re advocating for then is the kind of free trade we enjoyed when we were in the EU where a company in Burnley could as easily sell their services/product to a customer in Bournemouth as in Berlin, Brescia or Bratislava? Along with the largest number of FTA’s of any other country/entity allowing said company to also export easier to those partners. Sounds great, when do we join? 

[Rich_cb]

Some countries do go down the
Some countries do go down the tariff free route.

Singapore has gone the furthest and happens to be one of the richest countries in the world per capita.

Protectionism holds back trade. Trade makes a country wealthy.

[RDaneel]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

The Appellation stuff is pure protectionism. The fact that the UK has gone along with it doesn’t make it any less so. I called the changes cosmetic because they don’t create any meaningful difference. As concluded by fullfact. By including minor improvements in access for services in the Japan deal they do set a template for future trade deals in which services (80% of our economy) are prioritised over goods.

 

So we had a true Brexiteer Government and even they continued with these protections, might that tell you something? We’ve also continued applying protectionist tariffs and regulations, is that not insightful of a certain agreement of their place in world trade? Do you want to remove ALL protections and just let the “market” decide how it does business. Get Governments out of the way of businesses doing business! What could possibly go wrong? 
 

So the changes aren’t meaningful but they do provide a meaningful basis for future trade agreements.  Therefore one could argue they aren’t just cosmetic changes but actually quite important when looked at in terms of all the future trade deals the U.K. will do. Got it! 

[Rich_cb]

That isn’t my conclusion
That isn’t my conclusion Rendel.

It’s the conclusion of independent trade experts interviewed by an independent fact checking website.

You tried to mislead people and got caught out. Again. You’re now doubling down on your deceit. Again.

You know I expressed doubt about the India FTA multiple times. You chose to lie about it.

You knew fullfact cautioned against directly comparing those figures. You chose to lie about it.

If you lie about things that can easily be checked and then continue to lie even when confronted with the evidence then what else are you lying about?

How much of what you post on this site is the product of your fevered imagination?

[Rendel Harris]

Hilarious. Government signs

Hilarious. Government signs up to a trade deal with Japan under the aegis of the EU and the Department for International Trade says it’ll be worth up to £3bn. UK leaves the EU and signs a trade deal with Japan worth over £1bn less and says oh we were just making up the earlier figures. Rich buys this lock, stock and fraudulent barrel.

Feel free to keep calling me a liar old son, it simply shows up the paucity of your arguments. The lack of support you get shows just what notice people take of your spluttering faux indignation.

[Rich_cb]

Seriously Rendel.
Seriously Rendel.

You’re going to accuse me of cherry picking then do exactly that. The fullfact link goes in to detail about why those two figures can’t be directly compared. You know that. You chose to try and mislead people. Again.

It’s patently clear that you are in the wrong with your ‘confidently assure’ accusation. For that terminology to be correct there must have been ‘little doubt’ in my postings about the FTA. That’s objectively not the case.

It’s dishonest to try and insinuate otherwise but I can see why it may suit your strange need to be right at all costs.

2 examples of blatant deceit in short succession. How much else of what you post on this website is simply lies Rendel?

There’s no need for us to debate what’s written on the fullfact site, it’s pretty clear. The UK does indeed have reduced quota access in some areas but gets improved access for services. Overall fullfact concludes there is no overall significant difference. As I said.

[Author]

Replies